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".

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).