Here's a list of people that have strong disagree[0]. What about those that have been falsely identified by facial recognition software? Just because you think you've committed no crime doesn't mean the authorities have the same thought.
that's also been updated as not being the greatest advice as they can use the lack of activity for that time period as being abnormal for you device which show suspicion as well.
just like not having any social media accounts looks suspicious. having a laptop with no data on it what so ever looks suspicious. if they want to find you as a suspect, they will find ways of doing it.
>that's also been updated as not being the greatest advice as they can use the lack of activity for that time period as being abnormal for you device which show suspicion as well.
If you're a NEET or wfh is it really suspicious that your phone hasn't moved the entire day?
That video probably isn't making the point your trying to make, given that it repeatedly shows people getting beaten by police for things that definitely don't warrant it, and towards the end advises "getting a white friend" as a means of avoiding police brutality.
“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
Is your argument that we must obey all laws at all times, because a definition of "justice" cannot be given with the rigor of a mathematical proof? How then can law itself exist, without a means of objective interpretation? And why obey laws at all if no test exists by which any law can be determined to be either just or unjust?
You can find thousands of years of scholarship, philosophy, religion and legal doctrine on the matter, and most people seem capable of coming to at least a subjective conclusion on what is and isn't just, apart from what is and isn't legal.
For people protesting desegregation, the laws promoting desegregation were unjust.
For me, personally, punishments like death penalty (and adjacent, maximum security prisons, like ADX Florence) are abhorrent. If I had superpowers, I would violently oppose them. I would literally dismantle ADX Florence brick by brick, if I could. I imagine some people reading this would be equally horrified, and, would also violently oppose me.
The problem with protesting unjust laws is that these laws are just for other people. Coming to a personal conclusion on what laws are unjust is easy. Achieving consensus is impossible. Sometimes, even achieving majority is impossible (see, for reference, the Just Stop Oil guys who got 5 years in prison).
I'm not saying not to resist unjust laws; far from it. I am saying that determining what is moral and what is not is one of the hardest philosophical problems there is. And that opposing can, in some cases, lead to violence and civil war.
You're free to interpret your relationship with your government as a suicide pact if it pleases you. Others are not obligated to drink the poison of obsequious virtue.
The guy that was upset younger people were reading books instead of memorizing things, and believed that would make people dumb, and literally ruin the next generation of the world?
Yeah maybe he wasn't infinitely wise on all things.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre. [1]
Richelieu may have said this or he may not have but the fact stands that there are enough laws on the books to convict anyone of a crime no matter how virtuous that person thinks he is.
