Poaching, plain and simple.
I give this the same response I give to my high school students when they try to justify breaking the rules: If you know and understand the rules, there is no excuse for breaking them. If you don't know the rules, then you need to learn them, because ignorance is not a valid excuse.
The rules are there for a reason. Whether we agree with the reason, or even know what the reason is doesn't make a difference. If we disagree with the rule or the reason behind it, there are ways to try to get it changed, but the first step in any legitimate attempt to change a rule should be to OBEY THE RULE. By doing so, we demonstrate that we are law abiding citizens whose requests should receive due consideration. Breaking the rule demonstrates the opposite, and will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the people on the other side of the argument.
Quote:
|
are not all Americans obliged to challenge laws which they consider unjust, unethical or just obsolete?
|
Absolutely. It is not only the right, but the responsibility of each citizen to question our leaders when we think they are wrong. Challenging a law and breaking it, however, are two different things. Your comparison to the American Revolution is really no comparison at all. Our founding fathers were British citizens who felt they were being denied the rights that their citizenship should have guaranteed. They tried for many years to go through proper channels in order to achieve the change they were after, and they eventually concluded that the actions of the British government were, by its own standards, criminal. I don't think the same concept applies to game regulations, no matter how you twist it.