"Minority Rule"

[Dill]

(06-07-2021, 07:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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?  

LOL, You cannot "concede the definition of 'civil disobedience' does not apply" without seeing the merit of my argument.  That WAS my argument.

I've not only "reread the whole thread" I have recapped the essential points of our disagreement several times. I don't just tell people to "reread."  You cannot recap the argument; you can only offer unsupported impressions of our dialogue, record your feelings about me.  Or tell me to "reread." 

And now you're back to accusing me of some special exception for people who "refuse to follow such laws," never mind that you too now grant that they don't fit the definition. You feel I don't "like" those people. No wonder the central point you finally conceded sailed over your head for so long. Your feelings sent you after a double standard that didn't exist.

And no, not especially "clear." If my opinion meant nothing, you wouldn't be following me from thread to thread pulling "double standards" out of your ass.  You can't stop and you can't ever make the charge stick. As you once told Dino, before violating the principle yourself, endlessly repeating a charge doesn't make it true.  Let's add that "feeling/believing" it is true doesn't make it so either. And as long as your beliefs remain grounded in feelings rather than textual evidence, there'll be no changing your mind. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-07-2021, 10:56 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, You cannot "concede the definition of 'civil disobedience' does not apply" without seeing the merit of my argument.  That WAS my argument.

I've not only "reread the whole thread" I have recapped the essential points of our disagreement several times. I don't just tell people to "reread."  You cannot recap the argument; you can only offer unsupported impressions of our dialogue, record your feelings about me.  Or tell me to "reread." 

And now you're back to accusing me of some special exception for people who "refuse to follow such laws," never mind that you too now grant that they don't fit the definition. You feel I don't "like" those people. No wonder the central point you finally conceded sailed over your head for so long. Your feelings sent you after a double standard that didn't exist.

And no, not especially "clear." If my opinion meant nothing, you wouldn't be following me from thread to thread pulling "double standards" out of your ass.  You can't stop and you can't ever make the charge stick. As you once told Dino, before violating the principle yourself, endlessly repeating a charge doesn't make it true.  Let's add that "feeling/believing" it is true doesn't make it so either. And as long as your beliefs remain grounded in feelings rather than textual evidence, there'll be no changing your mind. 

I've never seen a bigger gap between a person's perception of their intellect and their actual intellect.  It's honestly impressive.

[Dill]

(06-08-2021, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've never seen a bigger gap between a person's perception of their intellect and their actual intellect.  It's honestly impressive.

If you are not going to "own" your own concession, 

if you insist on characterizing a digression based on your misconstruction as really about my deficiencies, then why not

pick out a post which represents my "perception" and contrast it to another which represents my "actual intellect." 

SHOW the gap rather than just claiming there is one. 

Then we can determine whether it was only my "perception" that I knew more about the definition of "civil disobedience" than you did,
and that's why you mistook internationally recognized criteria for Dill's "personal criteria." 

Until you do that, it just looks like there was a gap between YOUR perception and my "actual" intellect. And that's what you are really unhappy about.

Don't have the time, right? Talking the talk is fun, but walking the walk is "boring."  People who ask you to back your unsupported claims lack "intellectual honesty," right? So no need to respond--other than to generate more unsupported claims. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2021, 12:46 PM)Dill Wrote: If you are not going to "own" your own concession

Dear effing god, learn to read man.  If you spent half as much time actually reading what people write instead of brewing up your next bloviating reply you'd save everyone a lot of time.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

GA and TX why bother even having elections if they are giving state legislatures the power to override the popular vote

[Dill]

(06-19-2021, 05:02 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: GA and TX why bother even having elections if they are giving state legislatures the power to override the popular vote

First see if you can win outright. More legitimacy.

If not, then tank the results if you can't. 

Then let the party in control of the legislature decide, if it's the right party.