On 04/07/2019 18:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/07/2019 15:23, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2019 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/07/2019 23:56, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 23:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/07/2019 22:08, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 21:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/07/2019 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 10:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/07/2019 00:16, JNugent wrote:

Now, tell me why I should respect cyclists who break traffic
law constantly and repeatedly.

Why should I respect somebody that chooses to use a dangerous
form of transport (no matter how careful and law abiding the
driver) and believes he can tell others using a much safer
form of transport that their behaviour is dangerous.
Unlike you, I work on the basis that criticism of behaviour
should only go sideways and up, not down.

IOW, you make up whatever you need to in order to evade
questions whose answers are not advantageous to you.

In other words, criticism of behaviour should only go sideways
and up, not down.
How is doing otherwise advantageous to me?

That's the ticket. Create your own definitions within your own
little world. That way you think your "arguments" (yes, I
know...) cannot be beaten.

Whereas it is always your habit to obfuscate or change the
subject (as immediately above).
You have now played your hand. If you think my point of view is
open to argument then have a go. If you don't have a go then you
can't beat it.

It isn't easy to beat "arguments" couched in meaningless terms and
founded upon meaningless "principles".

I told you my stand point. There is no "argument" that can change
my change my mind about it.

I knew that you are impervious to facts. Well, not all facts, just
salient ones.

What facts, in this case?

All facts in this case.

If you know some facts, provide them. If you don't there are no facts.

That's a very flattering thing to say, but I assure you that I am not in
possession of all the facts which exist. The fact that I either cannot
or will not present you with a fact does not mean that it doesn't exist.

It is, OTOH, quite arrogant to claim that facts of which you are not
aware don't exist because you aren't aware of them. Be very sure of your
own ignorance. We all have near-unlimited amounts of it, you no less
than anyone else.

You just said so when you said there were no arguments that can change
your mind. "No arguments" subsumes arguments supported by, and arising
out of, fact.

Go on, give me some facts that should change my mind about not passing
criticism downwards.

See above.

And to any consideration of the rights of others, of course.

By 'consideration for others', you mean to drivers?

"Others" means everyone except yourself and/or your chosen tribe.

If it makes you happy, I will say this: when walking or cycling I care
little about the sensibilities and convenience of drivers other than to
assure my own safety.

The law actually requires you to do certain things which are clearly
required in order to assure the safety and convenience of others.

You don't care about that. Why am I not surprised?

Or for thinking that your attitude is wrong. You have seen other
recent posts, I won't repeat it.

The gods be praised.

Participants in argument have to operate from a common premise or
set of premises. Your premises are decidedly odd (whatever
"criticism of behaviour up, down and sideways" might mean).

You often tell people what you think they mean - which does not
resemble anything they wrote. You do understand it but you can't
twist it.

If you are talking about your "Over, Under, Sideways, Down" schtick,
I recognise it as a song title. In context, the phrase made little
sense there, too.

For goodness' sake. I use foot, bicycle or car for personal
transport. In a car, the only other people open to criticism are
other drivers (sideways). When walking, anybody is a potential target
for criticism (sideways or upwards).

So you say, at least.

Unless you can produce something from me, verbatim and with context,
that says otherwise, you have no option other than to accept it at face
value.

I acknowledge that you say it, if that's what you mean.

It doesn't mean anything.