This is an internet forum, not a court of law.

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 3 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 2 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 2 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.

▲

otterley 2 hours ago | parent [-]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47025768

You have the roles and responsibilities exactly backwards.

▲

wredcoll 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, my comments got more upvotes than yours did, and this is a democracy, so I guess I win?

	▲	otterley 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You can't see others' upvotes (at least, for net positive scores), so there's no way to know.