| |
| ▲ | y-c-o-m-b 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You had me up until now. Turns out your whole point is arguing semantics? You're arguing just to argue and not providing anything of substance on this point. As another person said, this isn't a court. | | | |
| ▲ | calibas 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If it's not clear already, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not using strict legal definitions. | |
| ▲ | Loughla 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Congratulations. By needling and carving at semantics, you win the argument! Two more Internet points for you! It's almost like HN isn't a court and the OP was expressing their opinion that this should be illegal. . . Not relying on specific semantics for the current state of affairs? | | |
| ▲ | otterley 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To say that something is a belief or should be and to say that something is a fact are two different things. When you say the latter, you are putting yourself at a significantly greater risk of being incorrect. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know this. And I’d expect someone with your background to know this better than most! HN is a forum of written communications. Clarity and accuracy are essential skills for participating effectively in such places, and are the responsibility of the author. | | |
| ▲ | alt227 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is an internet forum, not a court of law. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | And therefore what, exactly? When you distill the two down to their essence, they’re similar in that they’re groups of people making written arguments against each other. (And, frequently, complaining about mistreatment.) Are you trying to argue that people shouldn’t be taken at their word? Or that we shouldn’t challenge people who make unqualified legal assertions? I’m not sure what your point is. | | |
| ▲ | wredcoll 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | People here are making arguments about what should be. Either as interpretations or created laws. We all know that the actual interpretation is up to 5 republicans on the supreme court and whatever they feel on a given day will increase their side's power/ideology. No one is going to be making arguments about that because there's no point, you can't logic someone out of a position that they didn't use logic to get to in the first place. So again, when someone on a forum says "this is wrong and something should be done about it" replying that it might technically be legal at this moment in time is incredibly useless. It's completely missing the point. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > when someone on a forum says "this is wrong and something should be done about it" If that had been what was said, we wouldn’t even be here. | | |
| ▲ | wredcoll 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps we can work on what is called "media literacy" where we understand text based on its context and authorship and other such clues. | | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | oldcigarette 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | it is times like these i am reminded of https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm | | |
| ▲ | Loughla 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That was actually my first thought. The focus on this part of the thread has left the actual meat of the article entirely and is focused instead on a post trying to weedle meaning where there is none. |
|
|
|
