You don’t have to concede anything. No one ever does anyway.
The fact that this is a courtroom or a Lemmy comment thread doesn’t somehow negate the accuracy of the language being used. The context doesn’t change what the words mean.
And frankly, there’s nothing for you to concede. You’ve already admitted that I’m right and you’re wrong. Your only remaining argument is apparently that because this isn’t a courtroom, I’m somehow wrong—which is some impressive mental gymnastics.
“You’re right in the only place where it matters, therefore you’re wrong here.”
Okay. You said some stupid-ass shit, got called out on it, couldn’t come up with a response for weeks, and what you’ve finally come up with is still bullshit.
Don’t worry about it. I got you.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
someone@lemmy.today 4 days ago
Context does change what words mean. sudo rm -rf / means one thing in a terminal and means nothing in a legal brief.
You’re narrow technical view of one aspect of law, missing the bigger picture, is an egregious instance of a lack of context implying things.
For example, if someone said “Hitler made various economic improvements that were helpful” and that’s it, the person is likely a racist evil piece of shit, especially if it’s on a neo-Nazi forum. I suppose technically in a history paper the statement in and of itself would not be egregious or false.
In the same way, if someone is making the case appellate courts are still binding on lower courts, without mentioning that appellate courts not being able to create nationwide injunctions or impact nationwide federal policy when the Supreme Court is slow as an molasses and cherry picks what to hear, and when humanitarian violations are going on that are truly evil, that person is either malevolent, lacking rhetorical skills, or technically true but writing something that’s problematic for the context.
Look, I admire your 115 IQ and I find your arrogance alluring, and perhaps if we were in the same area and you were at least decent looking and gay or bi or bored, I’d let you fuck me once or twice because sometimes I like dumb guys who think they are smarter than they are, but even you have to understand why context does impact meaning. I have not admitted to being wrong.
It’s not to say that a lack of additional text makes an analysis bad, but using court language on an Internet forum doesn’t make you write, just like an economist saying on an Internet forum with no context how “Slavery was beneficial for GDP during 1784” is wrong and stupid.
Nice Em Dash, by the way.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Okay — so we have an appeal to my “IQ” — an argument that context doesn’t matter — an offer for me to have sex with you, but only if I’m gay or bi — and a criticism of how our law works.
So — essentially — the ramblings of an idiot.
I have made my case — I stated my points plainly — and I have provided the relevant information without any emotional context attached to it. If you don’t like the information — you are perfectly free to continue not liking it.
I’m done with your dumb ass — good day.
someone@lemmy.today 4 days ago
technically it was only if you’re decent looking and gay or bi and there was no appeal to your IQ, 1 SD is an insult not a compliment.
also — — — — — — — — —
It’s not the lack of emotional context that’s the problem. It’s about the false implication that there’s some underlying legitimacy when there is no legal mechanism to slow or stop unconstitutional policies except wait for a very slow judiciary to possibly act.
Are you a conservative? Why the fuck are you even on Lemmy? Shouldn’t you be on Reddit or Truth Social?
Being non-emotional may work great in briefs, but implying legitimacy when there’s a jurisprudential crisis caused by slowness and consolidation of power is ignorant. You’re either a conservative and don’t care or uninsightful.
I regert — offering to let you have sex with me if you were decent looking.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Oh, trust me, there isn’t a universe where I have sex with you. So relax. I have standards.
Once again, I was correcting a factual issue. I was not supporting, condemning, or otherwise commenting on the implications of the facts at hand.
And, once again, the way the Supreme Court approached this issue is historically consistent with how the United States has functioned. The underlying idea is that courts are supposed to be impartial, so, on paper, the system should work. I have already acknowledged that, in practice, that isn’t always the case.
But that’s not the point of my comment.
It’s funny, this happens constantly on this platform. I’ll correct an objective factual error or fact-check a post, and people get all butthurt about it (no pun intended).
You don’t have to like the facts for them to be true. And I don’t have to agree with something to accurately state what the facts are.
If your response to someone correcting a factual error is to assume they’re endorsing the position behind it, that’s a problem with your reading comprehension, not with the facts.