This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
The major premise of his argument is that “the display of swastikas or Confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” Thus, though he regrets that the students involved behaved in this fashion, Bok claims that censorship is dangerous and goes against the value of communication and American principles of democracy. He concludes his argument by suggesting that instead of enforcing codes, and thus violating the right to free speech, it would be better either to ignore such communications or to speak with those who perform insensitive acts. Rhetorical analysis Derek Bok organizes his argument by first describing the problem, then presenting both sides of approaches to resolving it, and finally explaining his personal stand on the issue. The rhetorical structure of such approach allows Bok present the argument fairly by conceding to the proponents of speech code enforcement that display of Confederate flags or swastikas is indeed insensitive and offensive. This pattern of organization also allows Bok to distinguish between the
At the beginning of this passage, King appeals to ethos by addressing their counterargument stipulating that their direct nonviolent protests were “‘unwise and untimely’” (166) using a neutral tone. King not only civilly approaches the counterargument when he states,” One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely…The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act” (166). King utilizes a neutral tone, without any usages of loaded words or strong emotions, to present himself as a level-headed, reasonable character and an educated equal to his audience. King reasonably responds to his opponent’s main point with a rational explanation indicating that their resolve to protest is merely an action to stimulate an administration inclined to maintain the status quo unless a call for change is demanded by the populace. In the effort to persuade his
It is clear that people do not abide by the laws regarding to alcohol consumption and that shows their lack of respect for this law so what’s stopping people from loosing respect for other laws and in consequence not following them? When laws are put in place but they are difficult or near impossible to enforce it causes a loss of respect by the members of society. Albert Einstein is correct in saying that “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. In conclusion there is no point in making a law which cannot be
It is because of the gross misinterpretations of this law that prevents all involved from getting a fair trial as in the Alexander, Giles and Landry cases. It encourages unlawful behavior with a crutch for assailants to lean on just like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn. It also undermines this country's law enforcement and judicial system. Sadly, it rips justice away from victims' families. While I do not personally feel the Stand Your Ground law should be abolished, I am adamant that the law needs to be revised.
While others, just an indignantly, pound the payments carrying picket signs protesting it’s an invasion of our rights and goes directly against the freedoms promised us in the constitution. No law should mandate this important decision. We should have the freedom to choose. Who is wrong and who is right? Is there a clear right or wrong choice?
"He has dissolved Representtative Houses repeatedly..his invasions on the rights of the people" I believe this is why the 4th admendment came about because there were unlawful search and siezures that may have crippled many people's lives. "He has refused his assent to Laws..for the public good" I believe this is why the 1st amendment was created, because they king didn't do anything for the public good or for thier rights to practice whatever religion they wanted and to have free will to speak whatever was on thier mind without being punished for it. Also for the 9th amendment because that one states that the rights in the constitution should not be denied of construed. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the civil
Not standing for the national anthem is an ineffective and counterproductive way to promote a cause. President Obama expressed his concerns that not standing for the national anthem can get it the way of the message, he stated that,” As a general matter, when it comes to the flag the national anthem and the meaning it holds for our men and women in uniform and those who’ve fought for us.” (Obama). Not standing for the national anthem is a legal form of peaceful protest, which is an First Amendment right. Refusing to stand for the national angers many and shows the division in country. The national Anthem has caused division lines between teams, fans, and across the country as whole.
But, is pornography really that harmful? There are many reasons why the government is having trouble putting restrictions on pornography. As Cynthia Stark states in Social Theory and Practice," just because some find certain materials offensive is not a sufficient reason for restricting those materials." There has to be proper grounds for making such laws to prevent pornography distribution because either way you look at it, it goes against the free speech laws of the first amendment. Nadine Strossen of the ACLU had a good point when she said "the First Amendment contains no exception for sexual speech.