"Minority Rule"

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2021, 10:52 AM)Dill Wrote: Dahl constantly refers to "citizens" when defining democracy, doesn't he? 

I mentioned the question of non-citizens as it reminds me somewhat on your comments about quora and the instability which might follow the lack thereof.

If I could vote in Canada or Mexico, and Canadians and Mexicans can vote here, it seems our respective democracies might dissolve in incoherence. Transparency and accountability would be difficult.  

I understand why some might want to include non-citizens residents, though, as it would seem they have a stake in the political arrangements under which they live, but no voice.

Dahl mentions citizens in some writings, but not in others. It's not very consistent. As for the second and third points, that is why I denote residents. Those that files taxes, specifically. Just my position on it. It may or may not have evolved based on having a permanent resident brother-in-law that is very politically astute but is currently, in essence, stateless. He has been in the US too long to have the franchise in the UK, and he lacks the franchise, here, because of his status.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-03-2021, 08:46 AM)Dill Wrote: The "personal criteria" you refer to exist as a long history of precedent, beginning with Thoreau's 1848 essay "Civil Disobedience."
But refined through engagement with MLK, who spends most of his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" explaining the steps involved in non violent direct action (non-violence being one of the criteria for defining an act as civil disobedience) and the relation of the disobedient to the law which separates his actions from "general law breaking." 
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

An updated "capsule" definition might be found here, just to establish how widely recognized the criteria of civil disobedience are, how the practice of civil disobedience is separated from "general law breaking": 
The Six Characteristic Elements Of Civil Disobedience https://youmatter.world/en/definition/civil-disobedience-definition/

If people employed the above-mentioned "elements" in protesting abortion, then I would certainly agree they were practicing civil disobedience. I can do that without agreeing with their goal. And not agreeing doesn't involve me in a "massive double standard."

So now we are back to your claim that people silently refusing to follow the law and register guns qualifies as civil disobedience. How, specifically, is rule of law honored in the violation here? 

(06-03-2021, 08:55 AM)Dill Wrote: So far, it looks like you were not using the concept of civil disobedience as it is generally understood among political scientists and activists. Rather than assert that your usage was not a "bar the concept has to hurdle" or accuse you of living in your own bubble or responding "of course you don't," or immediately questioning your good faith, I have taken the time to explain in more detail the classic definition of civil disobedience.

My employment of the term, drawn from long-standing definitions and practice, does not establish that I "live in a bubble" or "discount all other possibilities" just because I "discount" as civil disobedience actions which don't fit generally acknowledged criteria of civil disobedience. Though I am still listening if you can show me how your example of refusal to register guns fits those generally acknowledged criteria. 

I'm asking for clarification, again, of what you mean by "subjective opinion" in adjudicating ethical behavior based upon principles collectively held and objectively enshrined in law. So far, it just seems you are using the notion to create a false equivalence between actions which have more solid ethical ground and those with less (or none). So far, no one responding to your original example has expressed ethical paralysis regarding the walkout or the intent to reduce access for some demographics.

If "massive double standards" are bad, and "honest debate" is a goal here and a criterion you'd hold me to, then my request for clarification ought to be met with clarification, not dismissal. 


"Us"? 

The point of the example was to contrast a clearly defined act of civil disobedience with an act which was just "general law breaking." So someone ignoring a stop sign was not offered as an example of civil disobedience, but of an action which was NOT civil disobedience.  Note the cue: "as opposed to."

Both of these, predictably, long winded posts are essentially one long, drawn out, semantic argument.  You don't like the term "civil disobedience" being used in this regard, fine.  I couldn't care less.  Refusing to follow an unjust law is exactly civil disobedience, whether it meets your provided criteria or not.  Call it whatever you want IDGAF, the act remains the same.

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 06:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Both of these, predictably, long winded posts are essentially one long, drawn out, semantic argument.  You don't like the term "civil disobedience" being used in this regard, fine.  I couldn't care less.  Refusing to follow an unjust law is exactly civil disobedience, whether it meets your provided criteria or not.  Call it whatever you want IDGAF, the act remains the same.

Actually, no.

Someone who invokes a specific, traditionally recognized definition of "civil disobedience" from the get go, applies it consistently, and buttresses the usage with links to the traditional definition, is not engaging in "semantic argument."  That's the opposite of "calling it whatever you want." 

If you don't like the term "civil disobedience" being used in this regard, fine. But you can't simply adopt the meaning you prefer after the fact, and then claim your examples count as CD, "whether they meet [my traditional] provided criteria or not."  That's the essence of argument based upon "subjective opinion," simply asserting "the act remains the same" without refuting or otherwise engaging with the original definition. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2021, 06:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually, no.

Someone who invokes a specific, traditionally recognized definition of "civil disobedience" from the get go, applies it consistently, and buttresses the usage with links to the traditional definition, is not engaging in "semantic argument."  That's the opposite of "calling it whatever you want." 

If you don't like the term "civil disobedience" being used in this regard, fine. But you can't simply adopt the meaning you prefer after the fact, and then claim your examples count as CD, "whether they meet [my traditional] provided criteria or not."  That's the essence of argument based upon "subjective opinion," simply asserting "the act remains the same" without refuting or otherwise engaging with the original definition. 

Sure I can.  The term is a descriptor.  We're not calling a dog a cat or a car a bicycle here.  We're discussing a concept.  Hence your "definition" is completely arbitrary and wholly semantic.  Your reasons for this are patently clear, and directly result in my refusing to acknowledge your definition.  As stated, stick with it all you want, I don't care.  But you don't get to define what causes, or actions, define or justify "civil disobedience" or what actions constitute such.  Thank you and enjoy your weekend!

[Dill]

(06-04-2021, 09:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure I can.  The term is a descriptor.*  We're not calling a dog a cat or a car a bicycle here.  We're discussing a concept.**  Hence your "definition" is completely arbitrary and wholly semantic.  Your reasons for this are patently clear, and directly result in my refusing to acknowledge your definition.  As stated, stick with it all you want, I don't care.  But you don't get to define what causes, or actions, define or justify "civil disobedience" or what actions constitute such.  Thank you and enjoy your weekend!

My "definition is completely arbitrary and wholly semantic" Because "We're discussing a concept"?

Seems like you missed a step there. And again, you are just asserting things are so. 

A third reminder--My definition is not "mine," but the primarily accepted one articulated by, among others, Martin Luther King. Variations/innovations/differentiations in civil disobedience develop their stance in respect to this. So I am letting a tradition of political scientists and activists define "what causes, or actions, define or justify 'civil disobedience.'" And that is the definition you are refusing.  Was King's definition "completely arbitrary an wholly semantic"?

Your reasons for refusing this definition are patently clear. You want dress up your gun owners' silent refusal to comply with the law to count as something more than just a refusal to comply. But it's really no different from someone running a stop sign, when no one is looking, because he thinks it's unjust. And you want that to be "civil disobedience" so you can throw up another faux double standard--no one is giving your brave civil disobedients their due cuz everyone is focused on Dems' public protests.

For your gun owners' disobedience to fit the traditional definition, they'd have to announce as a group that they were not registering their guns and position themselves to let the law do its work--i.e., peacefully submit to arrest, gun confiscation, and/or fine. That is what is meant by "honoring the rule of law in the violation." 

Two posts ago you might have argued there is a catchall dictionary definition of "civil disobedience," which includes behavior like individuals privately refusing to pay taxes. And your guys' behavior falls under that. You could have argued there have been legitimate arguments over what counts as (legitimate) civil disobedience (which is why I specified my usage). That would have made your objection seem less arbitrary, not simply on "subjective opinion." But you'd still have missed the point for which I invoked civil disobedience as "honoring the rule of law in its violation," which was to resolve the apparent contradiction of breaking rules to preserve the ideals for which the rules were made in the first place. Resistance to registration is manifestly NOT an example of that, which may be why it doesn't get the "support" you envy in other groups.

If you persist in insisting that your example counts as "civil disobedience" under the definition originally invoked in my post to Hollo, then you will be constructing, deliberately, a "semantic argument" in which you are actively trying to substitute your definition for one already laid out, so you can include a form of disobedience excluded by the prior definition. Right now it looks like you are not arguing there can be different definitions, and you can find one expansive enough to include your example (Hoorah!) leaving my original point untouched, but that there is only one definition ("the act remains the same"), yours, and all else is "semantics." 

*lol Unless you are using the term in some specialized sense (e.g., computer science, chemistry) ALL nouns are "descriptors."

**You do understand that abstract concepts, like "civil disobedience," require more careful definition than concrete objects, like dog, car, car and bicycle, don't you?  People who don't define such terms, and assume their meaning is just plain there, are most likely to fall into what you are calling a "semantic argument." When people argue in good faith, they provide definitions for clarification, even if it makes their posts "long-winded."  Authoritarian-style arguments just assert what means what, and that's that. They block any work at definition and consistent application. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2021, 02:27 PM)Dill Wrote: My "definition is completely arbitrary and wholly semantic" Because "We're discussing a concept"?

Seems like you missed a step there. And again, you are just asserting things are so. 

A third reminder--My definition is not "mine," but the primarily accepted one articulated by, among others, Martin Luther King. Variations/innovations/differentiations in civil disobedience develop their stance in respect to this. So I am letting a tradition of political scientists and activists define "what causes, or actions, define or justify 'civil disobedience.'" And that is the definition you are refusing.  Was King's definition "completely arbitrary an wholly semantic"?

Your reasons for refusing this definition are patently clear. You want dress up your gun owners' silent refusal to comply with the law to count as something more than just a refusal to comply. But it's really no different from someone running a stop sign, when no one is looking, because he thinks it's unjust. And you want that to be "civil disobedience" so you can throw up another faux double standard--no one is giving your brave civil disobedients their due cuz everyone is focused on Dems' public protests.

For your gun owners' disobedience to fit the traditional definition, they'd have to announce as a group that they were not registering their guns and position themselves to let the law do its work--i.e., peacefully submit to arrest, gun confiscation, and/or fine. That is what is meant by "honoring the rule of law in the violation." 

Two posts ago you might have argued there is a catchall dictionary definition of "civil disobedience," which includes behavior like individuals privately refusing to pay taxes. And your guys' behavior falls under that. You could have argued there have been legitimate arguments over what counts as (legitimate) civil disobedience (which is why I specified my usage). That would have made your objection seem less arbitrary, not simply on "subjective opinion." But you'd still have missed the point for which I invoked civil disobedience as "honoring the rule of law in its violation," which was to resolve the apparent contradiction of breaking rules to preserve the ideals for which the rules were made in the first place. Resistance to registration is manifestly NOT an example of that, which may be why it doesn't get the "support" you envy in other groups.

If you persist in insisting that your example counts as "civil disobedience" under the definition originally invoked in my post to Hollo, then you will be constructing, deliberately, a "semantic argument" in which you are actively trying to substitute your definition for one already laid out, so you can include a form of disobedience excluded by the prior definition. Right now it looks like you are not arguing there can be different definitions, and you can find one expansive enough to include your example (Hoorah!) leaving my original point untouched, but that there is only one definition ("the act remains the same"), yours, and all else is "semantics." 

*lol Unless you are using the term in some specialized sense (e.g., computer science, chemistry) ALL nouns are "descriptors."

**You do understand that abstract concepts, like "civil disobedience," require more careful definition than concrete objects, like dog, car, car and bicycle, don't you?  People who don't define such terms, and assume their meaning is just plain there, are most likely to fall into what you are calling a "semantic argument." When people argue in good faith, they provide definitions for clarification, even if it makes their posts "long-winded."  Authoritarian-style arguments just assert what means what, and that's that. They block any work at definition and consistent application. 

Again, we're discussing a concept.  If you dislike the term "civil disobedience" to describe gun owners refusals to adhere to gun laws then pick another.  As stated, I don't care, but the concept is exactly the same, a refusal to adhere to laws that are unjust.  All of the rest of your argument is semantics.  Your sole purpose with this discussion is to lessen the objections and actions of people you don't agree with and strengthen those that you do.  In short it's typical Dill, "it's OK when we do it", of which there are now myriad examples.  Don't bother responding with more of your pedantry, there's nothing further to discuss here.

[Dill]

(06-05-2021, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, we're discussing a concept.  If you dislike the term "civil disobedience" to describe gun owners refusals to adhere to gun laws then pick another.  As stated, I don't care, but the concept is exactly the same, a refusal to adhere to laws that are unjust.  All of the rest of your argument is semantics. 

We are not discussing the same concept though. And there isn't another term for what I am calling "civil disobedience." Were I to use another term, it would confuse people--at least those familiar with the practice of civil disobedience.

King recognized that just disobeying laws because one thinks they are unjust is insufficient to distinguish true civil disobedience from garden-variety law breaking. 

He knew proponents of segregation recognized that as well. They asked him why he demanded others obey the court decision striking down segregation--i.e. obey the law--while he reserved for himself the right to break it by organizing an "illegal" demonstration. That's why he added extra qualifications, like breaking the law publicly and deliberately engaging legal authority by submitting to punishment, in order to raise the question of law's real purpose.

If you are right, then all the rest of his argument was "semantics" too.  But even King's enemies didn't misunderstand his point that badly.

(06-05-2021, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your sole purpose with this discussion is to lessen the objections and actions of people you don't agree with and strengthen those that you do.  

?? So in short, I object to actions I don't agree with and support actions I do agree with?? 

Just wondering--

Do you "lessen the objections" etc. of people you agree with while supporting actions of those you don't agree with? 

[Dill]

(06-05-2021, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  In short it's typical Dill, "it's OK when we do it", of which there are now myriad examples.  Don't bother responding with more of your pedantry, there's nothing further to discuss here.

There are not "myriad examples" of me condescending to fellow forum members and then complaining about a few lols. I don't call "leftists" racists and then warn others away from a thread claiming "leftists" there will call them "racist." I don't trumpet my support for free speech regarding issues I favor and then plead with the moderators to delete a thread I don't like. I don't flag others for "emotional arguments" while constantly injecting emotion into my own. (No one has demonstrated the latter penchant better than Fred # 203 http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-LE-Leaks-show-treatment-of-pro-BLM-protestors-vs-conservative-militias?) Don't get me started on when "hyperbole" is ok when you do it, but not others. 
 
When are you going to realize that this Roy-Cohn style (accusing others of what you do) won't fly when there is someone in the forum who keeps better ("pedantic") track of your positions than you do. Someone who doesn't accuse without evidence--a right you have asserted in the past and the epitome of "Ok when I do it." 

Back to the real topic: 
A guy who explains for those "less inclined to subtlety" should be able to walk a reader through this--

Where exactly, in which post, in which sentence, do I establish some act as "OK when we do it" but not when "they" do it?  

I invoked what is probably the most historically significant definition of civil disobedience as a possible (not certain) resolution to the paradox of breaking rules to preserve the ideal for which the rules were made. 

When your example of scofflaw gun owners simply didn't fall under that definition, because clearly they aren't trying to engage legal authority by submitting to punishment, you accused me of a double standard, and employing "personal criteria." 

Even though I granted that pro-life protestors and your gun scofflaws would indeed fit the definition if they met the stated criteria--criteria designed to elevate civil disobedience above merely breaking laws one doesn't like.

Rather than acknowledge the consistent application, or explain why King's criteria should be ignored, you passed over all that to merely assert that scofflaw behavior was "the same act" as that of protestors publicly engaging legal authority to provoke arrest and reshape law. 

I repeat, you did not explain why the definition/criterial I applied should be rejected. Missing the point of such requirements altogether, you just cried "semantic argument." For people genuinely trying to understand an issue, who recognize that the same term can (often legitimately) have different meanings, that should be a cue to examine and compare definitions, not to dismiss arguments by label, without actually refuting them. (There is a pattern now of you invoking "semantic argument" to dodge counter arguments.) 

In short, it is exactly BECAUSE I am applying a definition consistently that you accuse me of a double standard. But you are tired of "pedantry" and don't engage in "semantics" etc. So we'll let that claim stand without refutation. Nothing further to discuss here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2021, 02:40 PM)Dill Wrote: There are not "myriad examples" of me condescending to fellow forum members and then complaining about a few lols. I don't call "leftists" racists and then warn others away from a thread claiming "leftists" there will call them "racist." I don't trumpet my support for free speech regarding issues I favor and then plead with the moderators to delete a thread I don't like. I don't flag others for "emotional arguments" while constantly injecting emotion into my own. (No one has demonstrated the latter penchant better than Fred # 203 http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-LE-Leaks-show-treatment-of-pro-BLM-protestors-vs-conservative-militias?) Don't get me started on when "hyperbole" is ok when you do it, but not others. 
 
When are you going to realize that this Roy-Cohn style (accusing others of what you do) won't fly when there is someone in the forum who keeps better ("pedantic") track of your positions than you do. Someone who doesn't accuse without evidence--a right you have asserted in the past and the epitome of "Ok when I do it." 

Back to the real topic: 
A guy who explains for those "less inclined to subtlety" should be able to walk a reader through this--

Where exactly, in which post, in which sentence, do I establish some act as "OK when we do it" but not when "they" do it?  

I invoked what is probably the most historically significant definition of civil disobedience as a possible (not certain) resolution to the paradox of breaking rules to preserve the ideal for which the rules were made. 

When your example of scofflaw gun owners simply didn't fall under that definition, because clearly they aren't trying to engage legal authority by submitting to punishment, you accused me of a double standard, and employing "personal criteria." 

Even though I granted that pro-life protestors and your gun scofflaws would indeed fit the definition if they met the stated criteria--criteria designed to elevate civil disobedience above merely breaking laws one doesn't like.

Rather than acknowledge the consistent application, or explain why King's criteria should be ignored, you passed over all that to merely assert that scofflaw behavior was "the same act" as that of protestors publicly engaging legal authority to provoke arrest and reshape law. 

I repeat, you did not explain why the definition/criterial I applied should be rejected. Missing the point of such requirements altogether, you just cried "semantic argument." For people genuinely trying to understand an issue, who recognize that the same term can (often legitimately) have different meanings, that should be a cue to examine and compare definitions, not to dismiss arguments by label, without actually refuting them. (There is a pattern now of you invoking "semantic argument" to dodge counter arguments.) 

In short, it is exactly BECAUSE I am applying a definition consistently that you accuse me of a double standard. But you are tired of "pedantry" and don't engage in "semantics" etc. So we'll let that claim stand without refutation. Nothing further to discuss here.

You just couldn't resist, could you?  Save your time and effort, Dill.  You're myopically blind to your own bullshit, which renders your opinion worthless.  I know you think you're right, which is fine.  I know you think I'm wrong, which is fine.  But you're wasting your time if you think you're going to convince anyone with your arguments in this regard.  Fred was universally reviled for the behavior you constantly "didn't see".  I don't consider it even a minor exaggeration when I label him one of the most dishonest people I've ever had the displeasure to interact with.  The mere fact that you can't even see minor flaws in the way Fred interacted with people in this forum speaks volumes about your integrity and your "intellectualism.

I fully own my foibles when it comes to this forum.  I have absolutely attacked people personally.  I own it.  You, on the other hand, constantly have a double standard excuse up your sleeve, both for yourself and your little buddies, who never did anything wrong according to you.  So, this time, kindly take my advice and stop wasting my damned time with your crap.  It would be much appreciated.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2021, 02:36 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? So in short, I object to actions I don't agree with and support actions I do agree with?? 

Just wondering--

Do you "lessen the objections" etc. of people you agree with while supporting actions of those you don't agree with? 

Hahahaha, that you took this from my post just proves what a waste of time you are.  A person of intellectual honesty would acknowledge the merit in arguments, even when they disagree with them.  You on the other hand, well, you're you.  And, as I said, dealing with your pontifications is both tiresome and a waste of time, because Dill "doesn't see it".

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2021, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, we're discussing a concept.  If you dislike the term "civil disobedience" to describe gun owners refusals to adhere to gun laws then pick another.  As stated, I don't care, but the concept is exactly the same, a refusal to adhere to laws that are unjust.  All of the rest of your argument is semantics.  Your sole purpose with this discussion is to lessen the objections and actions of people you don't agree with and strengthen those that you do.  In short it's typical Dill, "it's OK when we do it", of which there are now myriad examples.  Don't bother responding with more of your pedantry, there's nothing further to discuss here.

So, I feel like jumping in just because I'm bored. Refusal to adhere to a law is not, in itself, the basis behind civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, according to any definition I have seen, requires a public display of that refusal and a willingness to accept the punishment from the state. I think this page from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides the best and most thorough discussion on the topic that is accessible for the lay-reader. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I have had a lot of training in civil disobedience and protest in general. You'd be surprised what they teach you in peace churches. Seriously. From all of my experiences and the readings I have done, I'd have to side with Dill on this one. Could 2A folks engage in civil disobedience regarding potential gun control measures? Sure. But just refusing to adhere to those laws doesn't qualify. We also need to see a public pronouncement as well as a willingness to submit to the authorities on the matter.

[Dill]

(06-06-2021, 03:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hahahaha, that you took this from my post just proves what a waste of time you are.  A person of intellectual honesty would acknowledge the merit in arguments, even when they disagree with them.  You on the other hand, well, you're you.  And, as I said, dealing with your pontifications is both tiresome and a waste of time, because Dill "doesn't see it".

Where is the "merit" missed in that argument? And why is this a standard for me, but not you?

Dill might "see it" if you could actually cite examples--post and line--and/or at least attempt to explain your point.

But you don't/can't/won't.  

I should add that by the standard you just invoked, the merit of Fred's argument, chock full of cited evidence, should be acknowledged by you.

But you don't respond to its merits. Instead of "owning" the valid points he makes, you claim (falsely) that he was universally reviled.

But again, you don't hold yourself to the standard you demand of others. And you do "see" it--hence the ad hominem rather than the "own."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2021, 05:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I feel like jumping in just because I'm bored. Refusal to adhere to a law is not, in itself, the basis behind civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, according to any definition I have seen, requires a public display of that refusal and a willingness to accept the punishment from the state. I think this page from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides the best and most thorough discussion on the topic that is accessible for the lay-reader. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I have had a lot of training in civil disobedience and protest in general. You'd be surprised what they teach you in peace churches. Seriously. From all of my experiences and the readings I have done, I'd have to side with Dill on this one. Could 2A folks engage in civil disobedience regarding potential gun control measures? Sure. But just refusing to adhere to those laws doesn't qualify. We also need to see a public pronouncement as well as a willingness to submit to the authorities on the matter.

Understood, and I conceded the point that under the definition of "civil disobedience" as provided refusal to adhere to, for example, an "assault weapons" ban would not strictly fall under that definition.  What I continue to maintain is that the spirit, or motivation, behind the action is exactly, 100%, the same.  So, as I stated much earlier in the thread, gun owners who refuse to comply with that type of gun law are engaging in an activity directly in line with the provided definition of civil disobedience.  Refusing to register an "assault weapon" is not different than failing to obey a Jim Crow era law in the sense that you are actively disobeying a law that you truly believe to be unjust.

As for the actively getting arrested part, well, the media is, let's say, less than kind to people who refuse to follow gun laws and they'd likely get labeled as terrorists, extremists, white supremacists or insurrectionists.  

[Dill]

(06-06-2021, 03:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I fully own my foibles when it comes to this forum.  I have absolutely attacked people personally.  I own it.  You, on the other hand, constantly have a double standard excuse up your sleeve, both for yourself and your little buddies, who never did anything wrong according to you.  So, this time, kindly take my advice and stop wasting my damned time with your crap.  It would be much appreciated.

The issue here is not whether you personally attack people. Of course you are happy to own that, and it is still toxic behavior even if you do.

The issue is whether you regularly throw up Cohn-style arguments, accusing people of double standards while employing them yourself. 

Do you "fully own" that you have condescended to entire threads, and then squealed "unfair" after a few sarcastic lols?

Do you fully own that you have flagged others for hyperbole and "emotional arguments" while blatantly relying on them yourself? (The link to Fred's post secures that pretty well.)

Do you "fully own" that you are a "huge fan" of different opinions and free speech when it comes to your views, but also want topics and whole threads censored when it comes to others'?

Do you "fully own" that you distort and misrepresent others' positions (ISIS supporters?) while claiming, sans specifics, they are doing it to you? 

I'd appreciate if you stopped with the unfounded accusations. Until that happens I am certainly going to "waste your damned time" actually citing your unowned "foibles."  If you don't like that, then stop diverting political discussion of public figures and issues to discussion of another forum member's character. Stop the unsupported accusation, "fully owned" or not.

[Dill]

(06-06-2021, 05:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I feel like jumping in just because I'm bored. Refusal to adhere to a law is not, in itself, the basis behind civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, according to any definition I have seen, requires a public display of that refusal and a willingness to accept the punishment from the state. I think this page from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides the best and most thorough discussion on the topic that is accessible for the lay-reader. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

Yes. The problem faced by the civil disobedient violating a law deemed unjust is that authority will, in the first place, view any such violation as just criminal. (I am guessing you may have experience with this.) Citizens don't have the right to decide, unilaterally, which laws are just and which not, which they will obey and which not. 

Further, if the disobedient claims to be upholding the spirit of the law, creating pressure for new/better law, there is in that an implied claim that people should obey the law.  But here the disobedient is breaking it. A double standard. "You all obey the law but I don't have to." 

So the practice of civil disobedience evolved to meet these obstacles/objections, in the U.S. especially, but also in Western Europe. Obviously you have to get the authorities' attention to get laws changed. And you go to jail because you respect the law. You break it but obey it in the break by taking the punishment.  You create and work in a grey area, intended to be temporary.

In the U.S. our authorities and civil societies luckily understand this form of protest better than in some other countries. 

I remember back in the early '80s when Germans were protesting the placement there of U.S. Pershing missiles, which they felt made them a target. Elderly grandmothers involved in a sit in were arrested in one case. To my horror, a German judge wanted to throw the book at them because, as he explained it, "We did not respect rule of law deeply enough during the 3rd Reich." That citizens were willing to break a law and accept punishment for doing so, did not, to his mind, raise any questions about the law itself. No give and take between people and government, because we don't want a 4th Reich? (This attitude is, I guess, the anti-thesis to that constitutional fundamentalism which can authorize a group of militia to assault a state governor's mansion, try, and hang the governor in a "people's court.") 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2021, 06:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I'd appreciate if you stopped with the unfounded accusations. Until that happens I am certainly going to "waste your damned time" actually citing your unowned "foibles."  If you don't like that, then stop diverting political discussion of public figures and issues to discussion of another forum member's character. Stop the unsupported accusation, "fully owned" or not.

I appreciate it if you stopped adhering to a blatant double standard when it comes to behavior by people you like versus one's that you do not.  I doubt either of us will get what they want.  

[Dill]

(06-07-2021, 11:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate it if you stopped adhering to a blatant double standard when it comes to behavior by people you like versus one's that you do not.  I doubt either of us will get what they want.  

LOL we've just worked through an example of one of my "blatant double standards" on this thread, haven't we? 

I invoked universally recognized criteria of civil disobedience as a merely suggested model for understanding Dem rule breaking.

When I correctly excluded your scofflaw gun owners from that definition, you cried "double standard" and claimed I was applying'
"personal criteria." so, unable to recognize the universally recognized definition as such, all you saw was "It's ok when we do it." 

After another round of personal insults and misconceptions, you conceded to a 3rd party, that the exclusion of scofflaw gun owners was correct. So no double standard based on Dill's "personal criteria" after all. 

Then you followed that by claiming the "spirit" behind those who DON'T feel strongly enough about a law they don't like to put their bodies on the line to change is "100% the same" as those who DO feel strongly enough to put their bodies on the line.  Just like resistance to Jim Crow era laws. Only without any resistance the authorities can see, and so without consequences.  100% like resistance to Jim Crow. 

Any examination of my other "blatant double standards" would turn out the same--based wholly on misconstruction, first, then rounds of deflection and obfuscation, as you except yourself from the logical consistency and standards of civility everyone else adheres too, and proudly "own" it.  As the inconsistencies mount, you demand I stop wasting your time. It's boring and intellectually dishonest of the people you slander to hold you accountable for that slander. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-07-2021, 01:36 PM)Dill Wrote:
LOL we've just worked through an example of one of my "blatant double standards" on this thread, haven't we? 

I invoked universally recognized criteria of civil disobedience as a merely suggested model for understanding Dem rule breaking.

When I correctly excluded your scofflaw gun owners from that definition, you cried "double standard" and claimed I was applying'
"personal criteria." so, unable to recognize the universally recognized definition as such, all you saw was "It's ok when we do it." 

After another round of personal insults and misconceptions, you conceded to a 3rd party, that the exclusion of scofflaw gun owners was correct. So no double standard based on Dill's "personal criteria" after all. 

Then you followed that by claiming the "spirit" behind those who DON'T feel strongly enough about a law they don't like to put their bodies on the line to change it is "100% the same" as those who DO feel strongly enough to put their bodies on the line.  Just like resistance to Jim Crow era laws. Only without any resistance the authorities can see, and so without consequences.  100% like resistance to Jim Crow. 

Any examination of my other "blatant double standards" would turn out the same--based wholly on misconstruction, first, then rounds of deflection and obfuscation, as you except yourself from the logical consistency and standards of civility everyone else adheres too, and proudly "own" it.  As the inconsistencies mount, you demand I stop wasting your time. It's boring and intellectually dishonest of the people you slander to hold you accountable for that slander. 

LOL, you just can't pass up a chance to pontificate, can you?

[Dill]

(06-07-2021, 05:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: LOL, you just can't pass up a chance to pontificate, can you?

So you are not acknowledging the merit in my argument?

Ok when you do it?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-07-2021, 07:16 PM)Dill Wrote: So you are not acknowledging the merit in my argument?

Ok when you do it?

If you'd actually read the whole thread you'd answer your own question.  No, I do not see the merit of your argument.  I conceded the definition of "civil disobedience" does not apply to refusing to, for example, refuse to register an "assault weapon".  I equally disagree with your characterization of the resistance to an unjust law as being unworthy of comparison to such an act.  In short, you don't like people who refuse to follow such laws and thus refuse to accord them any consideration in this manner.  That's ok, that's your right.  I am equally of the right to consider your position a double standard, as I believe is typical of you.  I think you're wrong.  I know I'm never going to convince you otherwise and I don't give two shits.  You're not a person whose opinion means anything to me based on your past and current conduct in this forum.  Clear enough?