06-04-2021, 09:09 PM
(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!
