Bruh. I don’t even know what your point is. All you’ve done is “well actually”'d through this whole back and forth while I’ve clarified my point.
It’s like I said the sky is blue and you came back with well it’s really clear but the defraction of sunlight through the atmosphere disperses the color blue more than other colors due to its shorter wavelength making it look blue. It’s a net zero contribution to the conversation other than to make you feel smarter for saying it that way
I contradicted your initial statement. You doubled down. I again pointed out the factual error in your statement. You then changed your argument entirely (moving the goal posts). You then made a false claim about what you said (gas lighting). I called you on it. Then you restated my argument as your own. I mocked you for the continued gas lighting. You finally accused me of “well, actually”.
My point is simple: the enforcement of laws is not based on truth, it’s based on debating within a rigid structure intentionally designed to reward the rich and punish the poor. Yes, it is true the law is written the way you claim. It is not enforced in the way your arguments suggested.
My goal was only to point out the dichotomy. Well, my first two comments were. I got annoyed with the dishonest methods of debate, and yes, at that point I decided to mess with you for a bit. For what it’s worth, I believe the oversimplified way your initial comment was stated is dangerous. Approaching legal matters as a matter of recognizing truth can result in horrible personal consequences.
That all aside: it would seem that our views on this matter are actually far more similar than either of us realized. Truce?
The dichotomy of actual law vs the subjective reality is definitely an issue that should be discussed, I agree. My only issue is that you posed it as a rebuttal and degrading my statement. I could have been less lazy in my wordage and assumed that people would understand the meaning behind it.
It wasn’t my intention to make it seem like I was trying something shifty, I was legitimately just clarifying my meaning and using more accurate terms to do so. I do see how one could interpret it like I was changing positions as words do matter
Your original statement, as written, is false. Just flat out factually incorrect. Your ego was bruised by getting called out on it, so you’ve been all over there damn map desperately trying to pretend otherwise.
You could have accepted you were wrong, and corrected it.
DokPsy@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Bruh. I don’t even know what your point is. All you’ve done is “well actually”'d through this whole back and forth while I’ve clarified my point.
It’s like I said the sky is blue and you came back with well it’s really clear but the defraction of sunlight through the atmosphere disperses the color blue more than other colors due to its shorter wavelength making it look blue. It’s a net zero contribution to the conversation other than to make you feel smarter for saying it that way
forrgott@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
I contradicted your initial statement. You doubled down. I again pointed out the factual error in your statement. You then changed your argument entirely (moving the goal posts). You then made a false claim about what you said (gas lighting). I called you on it. Then you restated my argument as your own. I mocked you for the continued gas lighting. You finally accused me of “well, actually”.
My point is simple: the enforcement of laws is not based on truth, it’s based on debating within a rigid structure intentionally designed to reward the rich and punish the poor. Yes, it is true the law is written the way you claim. It is not enforced in the way your arguments suggested.
My goal was only to point out the dichotomy. Well, my first two comments were. I got annoyed with the dishonest methods of debate, and yes, at that point I decided to mess with you for a bit. For what it’s worth, I believe the oversimplified way your initial comment was stated is dangerous. Approaching legal matters as a matter of recognizing truth can result in horrible personal consequences.
That all aside: it would seem that our views on this matter are actually far more similar than either of us realized. Truce?
DokPsy@lemmy.world 6 days ago
The dichotomy of actual law vs the subjective reality is definitely an issue that should be discussed, I agree. My only issue is that you posed it as a rebuttal and degrading my statement. I could have been less lazy in my wordage and assumed that people would understand the meaning behind it.
It wasn’t my intention to make it seem like I was trying something shifty, I was legitimately just clarifying my meaning and using more accurate terms to do so. I do see how one could interpret it like I was changing positions as words do matter
forrgott@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
Omg, shut up.
Your original statement, as written, is false. Just flat out factually incorrect. Your ego was bruised by getting called out on it, so you’ve been all over there damn map desperately trying to pretend otherwise.
You could have accepted you were wrong, and corrected it.
Image