"Minority Rule"

[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.