Trump is an insurrectionist

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 335
#331
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,987
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
It's not supposed to resolve anything between us, that's the point.
Then it's not a social contract. Which means it's a useless piece of paper.
We're talking about laws, not social contracts.
One of the sillier things you've said.


If you were being consistent and were confident that your views ultimately would hold up to rational scrutiny you would be itching to have these deeper conversations
I am not itching to have deeper conversations about the nature of language because you can't find any precedent for your double standards.

I'm asking you for an argument and you're saying "No the preposition goes before the noun", they have nothing to do with each other. You assert a secret meaning and when I deny it you pretend I am denying the existence of coded language as a rule. There is coded language, and coded language for violence, but saying there are evil/improper people and evil/improper acts in the world is not coded language to call for violence. If it was then all critical speech would be incitement.
#332
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,326
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
We're talking about laws, not social contracts.
That would apply in the case of martial law, where the public does not agree with the law. Your dystopia keeps getting better and better
I think you mean your disconnection to anything I'm actually talking about keeps getting better and better.
#333
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,326
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
We're talking about laws, not social contracts.
One of the sillier things you've said.
And yet it's a fact. You know they're two totally different concepts right?

I'm asking you for an argument and you're saying "No the preposition goes before the noun", they have nothing to do with each other. You assert a secret meaning and when I deny it you pretend I am denying the existence of coded language as a rule. There is coded language, and coded language for violence, but saying there are evil/improper people and evil/improper acts in the world is not coded language to call for violence.
No one has argued that merely asserting of evil people in the world is coded language for violence. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

The argument for incitement is based on the totality of Trump's words and actions from election day through January 6th. There is nothing difficult about that at all, yet you keep pretending that's not what I'm saying over and over again. Why? What is the point of reading anything I have to say if you're not going to listen to a word of it?

I am not itching to have deeper conversations about the nature of language because you can't find any precedent for your double standards.
The only double standards are the ones you're making up. See above.
#334
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,987
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
No one has argued that merely asserting of evil people in the world is coded language for violence.
You have asserted that claiming the elections have been rigged is coded language for calling for violence.


How many times do I have to explain this to you?
You are not explaining, you are asserting inferentially unrelated statements. No amount of repetition will transform that into an argument just as no amount of repetition of non-defamatory statements will become defamatory.


The argument for incitement is based on the totality of Trump's words and actions from election day through January 6th.
"The totality of trump's words and actions" is not an argument.


yet you keep pretending that's not what I'm saying over and over again. Why?
You keep alluding to a vauge fog by names such as "context" and "totality" and then concluding with "therefore I'm right". I'm not "pretending that's not what you're saying" I'm saying it's not an argument.

e.g. : Taken as a whole Biden's actions from 2020 to 2023 constitute an admission of being a reptilian alien plant. If you don't ignore the full context it's basic communication that Tara Reade told Kylo Ren to stab Han Solo.

That's all I see.
#335
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,206
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
One of the sillier things you've said.
It absolutely was. In a Democracy, laws are an agreement where the people give up freedom in exchange for security. That is the social contract. 

If a law is not part of a social contract, then it is just plain fiat from a dictator. Kind of like a TDS judge.

The legitimacy of laws in a democratic society derives from their alignment with the social contract and the consent of the governed, whereas laws imposed without such consent are clearly arbitrary exercises of power for the sake of power.