5 ms·
>The "false equivalence" was only in your mind, not in my text. It was only in how you imagined my motivations must have been to write such a comment, not any c
by criley2 10y ago
>The "false equivalence" was only in your mind, not in my text. It was only in how you imagined my motivations must have been to write such a comment, not any content of the comment itself.
It's sad that you bristled so indignantly at my words that you were unable to think them through and form a good understanding.
In your haste to screech that I put words in your mouth, you in turn became the very object of your scorn and put words in my mouth.
Let's be frank:
Silly archaic laws like NH's brothel law are wholly unrelated to Business, and if a business in NH or America formed to take advantage of archaic laws they would be smacked down aggressively by a court or legislature.
That is a wholly false analogy to the Chinese Traditional and Socialist Law systems, which have precedent and are aggressively used, today, in today's world, by natives and native businesses.
We're discussing a complicated 3 headed legal system where natives have a different experience than foreigners. Your NH brothel law, and American law in general, DO NOT OPERATE THIS WAY. It's not three headed, it's one headed. It's not an amalgamation of 3 disparate world concepts, it's an evolution of 1 concept.
What a terrible analogy, what a terrible reply.
- stcredzero 10y agoIt's sad that you bristled so indignantly at my words...In your haste to screech that I put words in your mouth Really now. You speculate on my motivations/intentions in black and white right here: "I think you're falsely equivocating the British-inspired American Common Law system with a fundamentally, institutionally different Chinese concept." Silly archaic laws like NH's brothel law are wholly unrelated to Business, and if a business in NH or America formed to take advantage of archaic laws they would be smacked down aggressively by a court or legislature. I never said otherwise. However, thanks for writing the above sentence, that cuts to the heart of the matter. I find this useful and informative. We're discussing a complicated 3 headed legal system where natives have a different experience than foreigners. And I deny this, where? Please look back at the comments. I'm not saying any of the things you say I'm saying. Rather you infer those things and run with them. Provide a quote that shows otherwise. In any case, thanks again for clarifying what the effective difference is.