He believed that law would spark change, but in his ignorance to social structures of the nation he was in, it did nothing.
I remember him desiring a multinational domino effect. Obviously he was wrong about how that would come about. I don't remember the wording well enough to say whether that was a proper goal for him; he seemed to have no doubts about causation, so he only needed the one simple goal of pushing legislators.
I don't think either of us will change our view on that. You're focused on it being proof of lone actors being futile. I'm focused on it being proof that stupid plans are futile.
Never heard of "walking something back"?
It has actually been more than 10 years since I've heard the expression, but I do still hear variations of it (my locale changes the verb). I've never heard your variation before - you completely dropped the "something" so it looked like you wanted me to walk myself back to some place. You also said back in plural, so I couldn't be sure it wasn't some foreign saying.
But, sure, it might look like I abandoned my original point. I accomplished my goal and then (implicitly) stated what the goal was. Then I started talking for fun. I thought it'd be a lot weirder to stop talking immediately.
I think I've done the opposite of a motte and bailey. I brought forward the naughty part first and now I'm entertaining the politically correct part. I'm also not trying to convince you of anything (I'd need to explain liberty to do that). This is a type of negotiation tactic, so I can understand you being on guard.
I remember him desiring a multinational domino effect. Obviously he was wrong about how that would come about. I don't remember the wording well enough to say whether that was a proper goal for him; he seemed to have no doubts about causation, so he only needed the one simple goal of pushing legislators.
I don't think either of us will change our view on that. You're focused on it being proof of lone actors being futile. I'm focused on it being proof that stupid plans are futile.
It has actually been more than 10 years since I've heard the expression, but I do still hear variations of it (my locale changes the verb). I've never heard your variation before - you completely dropped the "something" so it looked like you wanted me to walk myself back to some place. You also said back in plural, so I couldn't be sure it wasn't some foreign saying.
But, sure, it might look like I abandoned my original point. I accomplished my goal and then (implicitly) stated what the goal was. Then I started talking for fun. I thought it'd be a lot weirder to stop talking immediately.
I think I've done the opposite of a motte and bailey. I brought forward the naughty part first and now I'm entertaining the politically correct part. I'm also not trying to convince you of anything (I'd need to explain liberty to do that). This is a type of negotiation tactic, so I can understand you being on guard.