06-05-2021, 05:02 PM
(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.
