3 ms·

That would've read better if you'd tried to respond to what I actually wrote instead of letting your tribal instincts get the better of you. > Oh that's right

That would've read better if you'd tried to respond to what I actually wrote instead of letting your tribal instincts get the better of you. > Oh that's right that thing you say you couldn't find and I must have made up, is in fact in the same sentence that you pointed me to. I didn't say I couldn't find it, you've pointed to a different sentence (I referenced page 122, the quote you've given is from page 118, that would be a loooong sentence), so why are you writing that? Yes, you seem to be making things up or reading things second hand that distort the actual text that I've given you a link to. So, take a breath, read what I wrote again and respond to that, and try it with the attitude of charity[1] and (the buzzword of the moment) good faith, because I'm not really that interested in whether American women can get abortions or not as I'm not American nor a woman. Mindless tribalism isn't going to lead to a good conversation. I am interested in the law (mainly English common law and its derivatices), and people making claims that will stand up to scrutiny. Yours, thus far, do not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

SilverBirch 4y ago
I've literally quoted back to you a sentence from the document you cited with a list of all the things I claim including a direct reference to contraceptives that you could've literally ctrl+f'd for. If I were being less charitable I would've pointed out that the legal underpinnings of those claims also mean that Justice Clarence Thomas opposes inter-racial marriage, something not within the text but clearly consistent with his concurrence. I'll take you back to my original point in this thread - the arguments made by people like the Supreme Court Justices are contradictory and entirely driven by a decision to create pretexts for decisions they were going to make anyway. We know this. A manifestation of this, is people like you, coming out and saying that I've not read the judgement, and when I can directly point you to the section that contains what I claimed, you respond that I'm not being charitable to you. I'm not here to be charitable to you - I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments that make no sense to engage with, because they have nothing to do with the conclusions you drew in the first place.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments disingenuous arguments, eh? > Oh that's right that thing you say you couldn't find and I must have made up, is in fact in the same sentence that you pointed me to. As I've pointed out already, it's a different sentence. Which means one of: - you didn't read what I wrote properly (twice now) - you're lying - you don't understand your own mistake > I'm not here to be charitable to you You should be charitable to yourself and everyone here by leaving such arguments on Twitter where that kind of low quality nonsense is the norm, at least in part because people don't read what the other person has written properly.

SilverBirch 4y ago

I've literally quoted back to you a sentence from the document you cited with a list of all the things I claim including a direct reference to contraceptives that you could've literally ctrl+f'd for. If I were being less charitable I would've pointed out that the legal underpinnings of those claims also mean that Justice Clarence Thomas opposes inter-racial marriage, something not within the text but clearly consistent with his concurrence. I'll take you back to my original point in this thread - the arguments made by people like the Supreme Court Justices are contradictory and entirely driven by a decision to create pretexts for decisions they were going to make anyway. We know this. A manifestation of this, is people like you, coming out and saying that I've not read the judgement, and when I can directly point you to the section that contains what I claimed, you respond that I'm not being charitable to you. I'm not here to be charitable to you - I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments that make no sense to engage with, because they have nothing to do with the conclusions you drew in the first place.

brigandish 4y ago
> I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments disingenuous arguments, eh? > Oh that's right that thing you say you couldn't find and I must have made up, is in fact in the same sentence that you pointed me to. As I've pointed out already, it's a different sentence. Which means one of: - you didn't read what I wrote properly (twice now) - you're lying - you don't understand your own mistake > I'm not here to be charitable to you You should be charitable to yourself and everyone here by leaving such arguments on Twitter where that kind of low quality nonsense is the norm, at least in part because people don't read what the other person has written properly.