There's been a wonderful completeness about this thread, where a completely off topic dispute has perfectly illustrated my concerns about the
bill I hoped to bring to peoples attention.
The problem being: what can you do to defend yourself against someone who makes the rules up as they go along?
If they have the ability to apply the force of law, they not only declare you, but actually make you guilty, at their whim.
In honest debate, you have to accept that the other party is acting in good faith. If I say I have not deliberately insulted anyone, let alone everyone, then you take me at my word or consider me a liar.
Either decision dictates that the argument can go no further. If I am honest then there is no case to answer, if I am a liar, then there is no point trying to deal with me.
As this is a grave charge, the correct course of action is to inform the moderators and let them punish or exonerate me.
The incorrect course of action is to change the rules, declare yourself judge,jury and jailer and (this is the great leap of logic) assign yourself the right to insult me on the grounds that you say I have insulted everybody.
This is known as a circular argument, it is limited by the fact it does not justify itself by anything but its own terms. You cannot look outside, say to the posting guidelines, to justify insult to me bacause of my alleged misdeed. Deliberate insults are not to be allowed,full stop.
Rather than use the the moderators, dadaist was convinced of my guilt, and by golly he was going to prove it by any means neccessary. This is known as 'begging the question'. As an aside,taking matters of guilt and punishment into your own hands is also known as
'vigilantism' and is strongly disapproved of in most areas of polite society.
What was I to do? Abandon my own principles of fair play? Steadfastly, I protested my innocence while enduring the worst aspects of sophistry: tedious sub-sentence pedantry designed not to illuminate but to exhaust,shifting of goalposts, lofty condescension and basic ad hominem attacks. I'd like to think I stuck to the basic points and played fair throughout, though I was not obliged, as I was no longer in a debate, but an inquisition.
Anyway, the prosecution failed, after a last, flatteringly imitative, gasp, my profession of innocence was accepted.
Back to the bill I mentioned at the start. Dada is a normal human being. Could be prime minister one day.
If you look at the
bill and imagine what a normal human being,
one who shares dada's self righteousness, his sense of infallibility, his lack of reverse gear and his unscrupulous pursuit of what he thinks is right, could do with it, then you might share my reservations.
Or maybe not, some people like their leaders like that.
As to cessation of hostilities, I wasn't hostile to anyone. So that's not up to me. As I said, I hate conflict. The hostilities began with dada mounting his high horse to relentlessly bang away about my alleged misdeed.
I would have more fun watching my stools float.
As for apologies, Call me a bad winner, but the sky will darken with pigs taking flight before I have anything to apologise for in this matter. I demand no apology either, though I will happily accept one, as dada has assured me he does so when he is in the wrong.
No need to lock the thread, I'm done.
