Disobedient used in a sentence

Disobedient in a sentence as an adjective

Because then there's no real way to be civilly disobedient.

In fact, if there is no risk, there's little point in the "disobedient" action at all. So when these guys go to jail for DoSing a server, they've actually partially succeeded.

The whole concept of authority fascinates me. I've had a lot of troubles with this, although I'm not disobedient at all.

But I fear other disobedient subjects may think they too can get away with no consequences for their reckless actions.

What I see is an intelligent guy, who could really do a lot of good if he could actually be civilly disobedient.

The person who is being disobedient is asking "How can our society continue in a practical way when we treat people this way?

And this is precisely what makes this guy a patriotic civil disobedient and NOT a traitor, spy or criminal.

There is no doubt that revealing the truth is a disobedient act and must be severely punished in order to restore peace and public blindness.

It may also be detrimental when a disobedient has yet to complete disobedient acts that will call full public attention to the cause.

However, that is not the same as saying it is a requirement or a distinguishing factor that makes some civil disobedients better than others.

>Couldn't it be that history books give a sanitized view of society, and gloss over relatively minor issues such as disobedient youths?

Couldn't it be that history books give a sanitized view of society, and gloss over relatively minor issues such as disobedient youths?

Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I may not have been clear about the position I was taking--that is, that submitting to punishment is not a necessary requirement for justifying civil disobedience, but is instead a feature found common among some civil disobedients.

They wonder if we notice the insulation from emotions, they dissolution of our basic family structure, our disobedient and spoiled children, and our ballooning bodies.

This is why I wrote, because Slate "fails to take on the challenge of disabusing people of their expectations that one must submit to egregiously harsh punishment to be validly considered a civil disobedient.

MLK and Gandhi drew on historical predecessors who, despite not being called civil disobedients, were very much that and are considered and referenced by philosophers and political theorists as such.

This problem has plenty of historical counterexamples to distinguish disobedients from one another, and confuses submission to punishment as a requirement, instead of a feature.

It's rubbish that old dogs can't learn new tricks and so many dogs need new homes and more often than not, even with the most disobedient dog you can still skip the house training bit as that tends to be sorted unless they have had a horrific start in life.

But it appears that, in total, you're very distracted by the likes of MLK and Gandhi, and it's somewhat preventing considering things from a higher, more abstract level where you can reason about civil disobedience itself, pulled apart from the particulars of how some disobedients have practiced it.

There is nothing in submitting to punishment that absolves a disobedient of acting for "personal gain or fame".Moreover, submitting to punishment may be okay in a nearly just society, but the further one moves from that ideal, the weaker the connection becomes between effective civil disobedience and submission to punishment becomes.