(02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 07:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We're talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest. The idea is that certain forms of protest (ones that try and shame an individual) shouldn't be acceptable because they are not the free market at work as someone said earlier, but tantamount to bullying. WHY someone is protesting or if there are alternatives to the thing being protested shouldn't make any difference to what is and is not acceptable. If we say, well, this is different, then it implies that some otherwise unacceptable actions would thus be acceptable... and I disagree with that (and you seem to as well, but this wasn't clear earlier)

Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest. I simply indicated I felt one type could be considered the free market in action, while the other wasn’t. You jumped to the conclusion that me feeling like one was not the free market in action meant that it was unacceptable - I never said that or implied it.

I DID start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.... and I stared by saying that I wasn't really soeaking to you, but your comment made me think of something.... then while you accuse me of jumping to conclusions, I repeatedly supposed a logical inference, clearly open to the idea that you may believe diferently, but you repeatedly declined to clarify.

You accuse me of jumping to a conclusion, yet right here... YOU jump to the conclusion that 'not being free market' made it unacceptable. I actually said the opposite and you simply ignored it. Things can 'not be free market' and still be okay...

Post 11145, my very first on the subject.... I said the free market was you acting for yourself and encouraging others to do so as well. I then said, PEACEFUL protests, no problem. After 2 pages of back and forth, you agree with my initial point.

Quote:Something being different does not at all imply it is or isn’t acceptable. It just means that it’s different, and I never once even came close to implying that different = unacceptable.

You projected how you thought I would feel onto me, and then would not admit that for a long time. Kind of a pain in the butt to have this argument. This started from what I would consider a rather technical and inconsequential categorization on my part (free market vs not free market protests), but turned into you trying to tell me I was against the act of peaceful abortion protests. I may not agree with what the protests are about, but if they’re peaceful, they’re A-OK in my book.

I projected nothing. I asked... I even said in my first post, I have no idea if you agree or not and that I wasn't even really speaking to your comment. I LITERALLY said that..... and you decided to be confrontational rather than conversational.

You said it's different.
I said it's not different enough to matter to my point
You continued to argue about how different it was
I ASKED you why you were making such a pedantic point because although you continued to do it, you didn't say why it mattered. I ASKED if you were trying to say that it made a difference and you accused me of jumping to conclusions.

You argued merely for the sake of arguing.... and continue to do so now because you then came around to exactly what I said in my very first point on the subject.

The ONLY reason I can think of why it would matter if you were protesting a chicken sandwhich or abortion is the 'passion' with which someone might feel towards the situation (what makes them different)... and as I said in my first post, One's 'passion' should not be allowed to restrict someone else's liberty.

Thanks for taking quite literally EVERY opportunity to disagree with me, only to finally admit that you agree 100% with everything I said in my first post on the subject.... including that I didn't know where you stood on the issue and wasn't even reallty speaking to you directly about it.