General Discussion

fishwax

(29,346 posts)

96. No, it isn't hypocritical at all

Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:36 PM

Sep 2015

Approving of civil disobedience in one instance does not require one to approve of civil disobedience in every instance. Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is it ok to selectively choose what laws to enforce? [View all] StrongBad Sep 2015 OP

Entering the country without documentation is not a crime nichomachus Sep 2015 #1

Nice try my friend. StrongBad Sep 2015 #3

Here's a link just for you StrongBad Sep 2015 #4

The laws in that link are being enforced every day arcane1 Sep 2015 #40

So why do people get up in arms with talk to enforce the law to a greater degree? StrongBad Sep 2015 #67

Ask them n/t arcane1 Sep 2015 #68

No human should ever be considered "illegal." ananda Sep 2015 #41

are they legally in the country or not? that is what was meant still_one Sep 2015 #65

Semantics StrongBad Sep 2015 #66

And TeddyR Sep 2015 #2

If I eat an apple for breakfast, why shouldn't I eat apple pie for dinner? geek tragedy Sep 2015 #5

But both require punishment by law (including jail time) if violated StrongBad Sep 2015 #6

they do not 'require' punishment. Stop getting your information from this guy: geek tragedy Sep 2015 #10

A link just for you. StrongBad Sep 2015 #12

I can understand your glee in thinking you've found your silver bullet geek tragedy Sep 2015 #15

It is indeed a civil crime to be enforced by deportation StrongBad Sep 2015 #95

"civil crime" geek tragedy Sep 2015 #98

Fine pedant. Civil offense StrongBad Sep 2015 #99

You seem to be missing an important point jberryhill Sep 2015 #7

Not enforcing laws violates the rights of people who live in a society of law. StrongBad Sep 2015 #8

No it does not, and you clearly do not understand how law works jberryhill Sep 2015 #17

No argument from me there, but the state does have power to enforce violations against itself. StrongBad Sep 2015 #22

Sometimes it's a matter of resources. RichVRichV Sep 2015 #111

Would you prefer boxcars or labor camps for people caught illegally crossing the border? geek tragedy Sep 2015 #18

Sending them back to their home country is enforcing the law, which is fine. StrongBad Sep 2015 #23

That's what is being done already. If they get caught illegally crossing the border, they geek tragedy Sep 2015 #25

The whole topic of this convo is regarding how most ppl here don't think that's a good thing. StrongBad Sep 2015 #43

Are you saying this topic is that if we accept 1 law as good, we should accept them all as good? uppityperson Sep 2015 #48

No, but we should accept them all as the law... StrongBad Sep 2015 #64

Accept bad laws as law and don't oppose more resources being diverted to their enforcement? uppityperson Sep 2015 #69

Not exactly StrongBad Sep 2015 #77

you seem to be changing what you are saying. uppityperson Sep 2015 #80

Ok if you want to be pedantic, the latter version is a better expressed version of my position. StrongBad Sep 2015 #82

just trying to be clear and understand since there is a big difference, not minor details between uppityperson Sep 2015 #90

No it doesn't. That's a silly assertion. fishwax Sep 2015 #75

Now prove standing... NutmegYankee Sep 2015 #78

The Republican Party is over there, to the right, next to those idiots in the tricorn hats. Maedhros Sep 2015 #9

Not an argument StrongBad Sep 2015 #11

Because there are good laws and bad laws. nt dumbcat Sep 2015 #13

And you're saying it's up to the individual to make that judgement call? StrongBad Sep 2015 #16

You are free to test that theory to your heart's content jberryhill Sep 2015 #19

Illegal entry is a violation of the state, not indiviual. StrongBad Sep 2015 #24

Your question sort of answers itself... jberryhill Sep 2015 #34

True, the gov't doesn't HAVE to enforce every violation of law to the letter. StrongBad Sep 2015 #71

Have at it dumbcat Sep 2015 #26

I'm curious if people who support the president, governors and mayors exercising their discretion branford Sep 2015 #29

I think I know the answer to your question dumbcat Sep 2015 #33

Unless you're an elected executive, both our opinions don't really matter. branford Sep 2015 #47

Oh, hey! geek tragedy Sep 2015 #42

I never left. branford Sep 2015 #49

prosecutorial discretion is a necessity. geek tragedy Sep 2015 #52

I understand and agree with the necessity of prosecutorial discretion, branford Sep 2015 #70

such broad discretion exists only in the face of Congressional abdication. geek tragedy Sep 2015 #76

While that may be true, the President gains no greater authority branford Sep 2015 #101

I don't think it is possible to enforce all of the laws on the books. Make7 Sep 2015 #14

Please show me an example of a judge or ICE agent refusing to enforce immigration law. KamaAina Sep 2015 #20

I can't, because that's not the topic of my query StrongBad Sep 2015 #27

this isn't a prosecution, genius, it's contempt of court. geek tragedy Sep 2015 #30

And contempt of court is a violation of law, as is being in the country illegally. StrongBad Sep 2015 #31

No, you simply have no idea what you're talking about, as is the case with most Trump-loving geek tragedy Sep 2015 #37

Correct, it is a civil offense, which according to civil law has penalty of deportation. StrongBad Sep 2015 #39

So, effectively you're whining that all 11 million undocumented immigrants aren't being rounded geek tragedy Sep 2015 #45

Hypothetically, if there were 11 million clerks not performing their duties... StrongBad Sep 2015 #51

so this is what it's like to debate birthers nt geek tragedy Sep 2015 #53

Pretty much, yeah jberryhill Sep 2015 #57

Not an argument. StrongBad Sep 2015 #58

No, but it's a fact. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #59

Many police departments are refusing to enforce gun control laws branford Sep 2015 #56

yes, they have the discretion to look for rapists and murderers rather than stopping geek tragedy Sep 2015 #61

We are then in agreement, although I imagine others here might not be as ideologically consistent.nt branford Sep 2015 #73

What a fucking stupid comparison. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #21

Did you post in the wrong thread? StrongBad Sep 2015 #32

Did you reply to the wrong reply in this thread? It's a stupid fucking comparison. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #35

Please explain why it's ok to enforce some laws and not others. StrongBad Sep 2015 #46

No. Because immigration laws ARE being enforced every goddamn day. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #50

They do seem upset when people talk about diverting more resources to support the laws enforcement. StrongBad Sep 2015 #62

"They"? You mean Democrats? You use "they" because you're not part of that group, right? PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #72

No, I'm not part of the group of hypocrites. Thanks for asking. StrongBad Sep 2015 #81

Are you a Democrat? PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #84

Yeah see elsewhere on this thread. I've been on this board for 12 years and have voted Dem since2000 StrongBad Sep 2015 #86

Your contention is that those who disagree with you are hypocrites. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #89

It is hypocritical to want enforcement of some laws and not others. StrongBad Sep 2015 #91

Nope. PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #92

No, it isn't hypocritical at all fishwax Sep 2015 #96

Yes but civil disobedience implies that you are knowingly breaking the law and expect punishment StrongBad Sep 2015 #97

it doesn't mean (as a supporter, rather than a practitioner) that you expect/desire enforcement fishwax Sep 2015 #100

This ^ PeaceNikki Sep 2015 #109

it's make "we" Democrats Facility Inspector Sep 2015 #87

This thread is amusing LittleBlue Sep 2015 #28

Thank you. StrongBad Sep 2015 #36

I agree with you and understand what you're saying. Keep in mind though, we, as a society, have ... BlueJazz Sep 2015 #79

RW nonsense. Sell it elsewhere. JoePhilly Sep 2015 #38

Not an argument. StrongBad Sep 2015 #83

The immigration laws ARE enforced.... steve2470 Sep 2015 #44

It's obviously a question of practicality and right and wrong. joshcryer Sep 2015 #54

+1 nt steve2470 Sep 2015 #60

Some laws exist for bad or stupid reasons, some for good reasons, and some just exist. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #55

And who is the arbiter of what is an acceptable law? StrongBad Sep 2015 #93

Sure you can! Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #114

Erich has pretty much hit the nail on the head here discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2015 #115

Cause requiring someone on foot with a lantern preceed each car One_Life_To_Give Sep 2015 #63

Because we're not robots. randome Sep 2015 #74

Cool, I'm gonna use that defense next time I break the law. StrongBad Sep 2015 #88

This is a case of a governmental official refusing to perform their governmental function for prayin4rain Sep 2015 #85

Do you think the federal government should enforce marijuana laws B Calm Sep 2015 #94

or laws concerning gun control, protecting abortion clinics and other civil rights, etc. branford Sep 2015 #102

I recommend we impeach her and subsequently fire her rock Sep 2015 #103

I'm pretty sure that the whole issue is that she can't be fired. StrongBad Sep 2015 #104

Ironically, she's a Democrat, and her removal would mean branford Sep 2015 #106

I LOVE how this lady getting thrown in jail has caused an uproar among the ignorant fundies! Rex Sep 2015 #105

I am in complete agreement with you. StrongBad Sep 2015 #107

Oh were we staying on topic? I noticed you are all over the place as are others in this thread. Rex Sep 2015 #108

You're asking the wrong person. I don't know much about that issue. StrongBad Sep 2015 #110

Check it out, you will be surprised at how relaxed they are about illegal gerrymandering. Rex Sep 2015 #112

It happens all the time gratuitous Sep 2015 #113