View Full Version : Difference Between "Dissent" and "Disloyalty?"

11th Oct 2008, 03:55
If social and political dissent is the catalyst for constructive change, when does it become "disloyal" and deconstructive to the fabric of a nation?

Or is there no line; all dissent should be construed as "disloyal?"

11th Oct 2008, 04:13
I view the two words on two different levels. One, disloyal, involves a more subjective, personal relationship and the other, dissent, involves a broader view point that affects one (and usually others) personally, in the long run.

I'm curious what others will post. Am always open to the interpretation of others, until they are disloyal to mine and I feel overall dissent from the masses. ;)

11th Oct 2008, 05:15
As I understand it, disloyalty refers to any situation where you abandon your allegiance or commitment to a person (or to your country etc.). Dissent is simply disagreement. It seems to me that dissent is quite possible while still maintaining absolute loyalty. For example, if you disagreed with a new policy at work because you felt it was not in the best interests of your company, you are still being loyal to your employer. Or, if you were very proud of being English/German/American/whatever, you could disagree completely with a particular law passed by the current government without that ever affecting your devotion to your country.

Disloyalty can be the product of different factors ... for example, there might be absolutely nothing you disagree with about your employer's work practices or indeed anything about where you work, yet you might still accept another job offer simply because you liked it better.

I think the two are different things and that one can never "become" the other.

Am always open to the interpretation of others, until they are disloyal to mine and I feel overall dissent from the masses.

11th Oct 2008, 05:27
Bluey...interesting interpretation. Without looking at a dictionary, I kept linking the word, dissent, with those events in history, like Politcal Dissent, where there was--in essence, a loyalty to one's country, but a feeling of being completely at odds with the current gov't doctrines that are broad in scope, but end up on a level of personal conflict. (and/or for fellow citizens)

Could be a combination of both. In the end, it may just be symantics.

Or is that some antics? :}

11th Oct 2008, 07:22
You will often find dissent in the rarified atmosphere of Supreme, High, and Appeals Courts.

"Majority decision is this, Justice Bloggs dissenting", and they publish both decisions with reasons.

In that environment dissent is seen as both good and healthy.

I think Bluey has a good, working definition.

Der absolute Hammer
11th Oct 2008, 07:57
Dissenters should be dispatched before disloyalty disrupts democracy.
European Parliament guideline adopted in entirity by UK Prime Minister in recent cabinet shuffle?

11th Oct 2008, 11:13
Seems to me loyalty and hence disloyalty operate on different levels.
Sometimes those loyalties clash. EG: I have loyalty to my family, to my company, to my country. But if my country decides to conscipt young men to fight an illegal war I will voice my dissent. Untimately my loyalty to my son and his well being trump my loyalty to my country, so I fly him off to some safe place making me disloyal to my country. This may mean being absent from my place of work which is disloyal to my company. Comes down to choosing from two opposing views: "My country right or wrong" and "I will protect my family against all comers"

11th Oct 2008, 11:28
I see you give your location as the UK, vee-tail-1, so as the UK hasn't been involved in any illegal wars for several hundred years you obviously don't have any problems with loyalty and dissent where the UK is concerened, at the moment, do you?

Der absolute Hammer
11th Oct 2008, 12:02
What is a difference between the attitude of..
'My country right or wrong.'
'My family right or wrong.'
I will not allow my family to fight a war I consider illegal.
I will justify my son's drink driving killing.
Same mental setting or not?

11th Oct 2008, 12:06
Hi parabellum, I will take the bait.
My thinking is of the situation after july 2009 when the legal definition of the crime of aggression is enshrined in international law.
The choice then could be between loyalty to one's country or respect for and therefore loyalty to the purposes of international law.
The dissent that you then express will depend on whether you see yourself as a global citizen, a European citizen, an American citizen, or some kind of free spirit.

Hammer, in my opinion family loyalty is not the same as condoning drink driving. If my son killed or injured someone due drink driving: As well as acceptance of just punishment, he and I would aquire a moral obligation to do our utmost to help the victims family. Loyalty to suffering humanity trumps family loyalty in that case.

Der absolute Hammer
11th Oct 2008, 12:08
It will depend on which passport you travel away from trouble on.
Remember Lord Haw Haw.

11th Oct 2008, 12:32
Well he already has both French & British, perhaps a Russian one could be useful :hmm:

11th Oct 2008, 17:42
What about dysentery?

tony draper
11th Oct 2008, 18:07
Make s no nevermind,when I'm in charge both will be taken outside and shot.

Der absolute Hammer
11th Oct 2008, 18:33
French and British are EU so he is a European nationa, servant of social Brussels who do not mourn sad demise of Jorge Haider today.
Russian would be good but Turkish better. All advantages of being outside with prospects of being inside. Also, second religion is useful in aircraft hi jack situation.

11th Oct 2008, 18:49
'Treason is merely a Matter of Dates' Nietzsche

12th Oct 2008, 00:23
What about dysentery?

Just as I was about to write..... this discussion is an awful lot to digest.