"Minority Rule"

[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.