@zozzers said in #68:
You're creating a slippery slope. What if a burglar, another type of criminal, decided that the laws that allow you to have so much wealth and him to have nothing are "unjust" and so based on your notion that we don't have to follow "unjust" laws broke into your home putting your belongings and family's life at risk. Would you support him and help him pack up your valuables? What about people that feel they have a just reason to murder?
This illustrates my point. You asked me "What if the laws are unjust?". Well I would ask you unjust according to who? Almost everyone who breaks laws makes some kind of justification for it. If all it takes is the person who breaks the law to say "but I think the law is unjust" that brings us back to total anarchy. We give the job of making laws to our governments and so we have to hope they make good ones. If not, we can try to change the government. But that does not mean we all get to run around like lawless baboons doing what we please. That will make life horrible for everyone.
And as for your example of the people that fought for American independence, well if the movement hadn't succeeded they would have hung as traitors wouldn't they? Yes, if you successfully overthrow your government then you as a law breaker become legitimized but until that happens she is still a traitor.
You accuse me of using simplistic arguments but it seems to me your saying that FIDE putting spin on this incident is some kind of proof they knew they were in the wrong thing is indeed a very facile counter argument. No, it doesn't demonstrate they did anything wrong it simply shows that they correctly assessed the effect that taking a stand that doesn't line up with current popular trends in such a militantly feminist world would have. And it's more important that they did the right thing then it is to brag about having done it. If anything this should show you have far off kilter the world has gone to one side when even a well established independent organization like FIDE has to walk on eggshells around subjects that pertain to their internal affairs.
I talked about Bayat's character because she chose to make herself into a public figure and it's relevant to the context of this discussion. It's not as if I was in a debate with another user on a public forum and committed an ad hominem attack on them by calling them "mean-spirited". But that's exactly what you just did.