Am I a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer? It can be only one.
I'm guessing you're not a lawyer.
The fact that you can look up "civil disobedience" in law books proves you're wrong here.
I'm not a lawyer. I don't care who defines it how, I don't respect your way of lawyering.
And what happens if my own personal constitution says that everyone who disagrees with me is subject to death?
The strong survive. You're truth has to be real, if it is half cooked stupidity it gets knocked to the ground. Again it is about faith in perfect things.
If we live by our own truth, and not the law of man, what's stopping me from just killing anyone who disagrees with me?
Truth is proven in practice. If you have an idiotic notion of killing people as truth, it's a weak untrue notion and you lose in the end.
You're hypothetical is flawed by reality. It's an infentile argument. Truth and reality are joined at the hip.
It doesn't matter if YOU care who defines it or not. Because the legal system doesn't care about your solitary opinion. Civil disobedience is a defined action, legally. It's like how the color green exists, even if you don't like it.
So now you're defining and limiting what someone's truth can be.
Again, no, "truth" is subjective, and you've just proven that here by dictating what truth should be.
You don't like my hypothetical version of what my truth is, so you've said it's wrong and doesn't work in YOUR version of how things should be.
No, the idea that you have of it is simple. And wrong. Civil disobedience is an actual, defined action in the legal system.
Says the want to be lawyer.
Sorry AI, life is way more simple then the system lawyers would have you believe.
It's a line in the sand.
You want to be free? Have your own constitution and live by it. Allow the Holy Spirit to teach you truth.
Remember, faith in perfect things will make you free.
Otherwise you're just under the bondage of corruption.
You'll get in trouble if it fight it.
Am I a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer? It can be only one.
The fact that you can look up "civil disobedience" in law books proves you're wrong here.
And what happens if my own personal constitution says that everyone who disagrees with me is subject to death?
If we live by our own truth, and not the law of man, what's stopping me from just killing anyone who disagrees with me?
What's stopping anyone from just killing people they don't like the looks of, including you?
Again, your ideas are all grand until someone uses those same ideas in a way you don't like.
What if my personal truth is that the legal system we have is right and it should be followed?
How can you be arguing with me here about it, if it's my truth and we should live by our truth?
I'm guessing you're not a lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer. I don't care who defines it how, I don't respect your way of lawyering.
The strong survive. You're truth has to be real, if it is half cooked stupidity it gets knocked to the ground. Again it is about faith in perfect things.
Truth is proven in practice. If you have an idiotic notion of killing people as truth, it's a weak untrue notion and you lose in the end.
You're hypothetical is flawed by reality. It's an infentile argument. Truth and reality are joined at the hip.
It doesn't matter if YOU care who defines it or not. Because the legal system doesn't care about your solitary opinion. Civil disobedience is a defined action, legally. It's like how the color green exists, even if you don't like it.
So now you're defining and limiting what someone's truth can be.
Again, no, "truth" is subjective, and you've just proven that here by dictating what truth should be.
You don't like my hypothetical version of what my truth is, so you've said it's wrong and doesn't work in YOUR version of how things should be.