3 ms·

Again, having standing to sue does not mean they'll win the case. They will not win the case by saying "we have a right to profit and the government's policy is

Again, having standing to sue does not mean they'll win the case. They will not win the case by saying "we have a right to profit and the government's policy is subverting this", and the fact that anyone could read the article and come away acting like this is actually their argument just shows what a disservice its bias is doing.

wolverine876 3y ago
So I can't just think these things myself and have a valid opinion, you must dismiss my views as invalid and having been manipulated by the article. An ironic claim about bias. Also, do you have evidence of the bias you claim, or are you just biased?
gaganyaan 3y ago
Reading this thread is bizarre. You're straight-facedly arguing for an absurd position, people point out how absurd it is, and then you double down and defend the absurdity.
- yanderekko 3y ago
  Alternatively, I'm right and many others are wrong, largely because they're systematically biased based on loosely-applied tribal sentiments about federal government good, private loans bad, and all specific arguments are ad hoc and downstream from this. If you feel like contributing, please bring some arguments to the table. Do you think that SoFi is grounding its legal arguments in a "right to profit"? Do you think a broadly agreed-upon "right to profit" is necessary to generate legal standing in this case? Why?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > systematically biased based on loosely-applied tribal sentiments about federal government good, private loans bad, and all specific arguments are ad hoc and downstream from this. I think that claim is your bias or just misinformation talking. One reason is that it's a common bias of the right - they say liberals think this way, but I never hear actual liberals saying that. Do you have evidence of it?
  - gaganyaan 3y ago
    You're arguing that oil & gas companies should have standing to sue over a specific mass transit policy: > I mean, maybe not "mass transit" in the abstract but a lot of specific mass transit policies that directly impact their business? Absolutely. That's absurd on the face of it, and people are trying to gently point that out to you. Consider that sometimes, when "everyone else is wrong and you're right", it's because you're actually driving down the wrong side of the freeway. Shouting "You're just driving on the wrong side of the freeway because of tribal sentiments!!" isn't a magic phrase that will prevent you from hitting another car. EDIT: I think you think this situation is akin to "well even bad people should get lawyers so that we know the rule of law is upheld". It's not. You're arguing for something closer to "well the murderer should've just murdered the witness that's testifying, and then the case would be dropped". In other words, you're arguing for something obviously unethical. Even if you believe you technically have a point, it's not a point that you should be telling other people that you want to have respect for you.
    - yanderekko 3y ago
      >You're arguing that oil & gas companies should have standing to sue over a specific mass transit policy Yes, this is trivially true. Let's say there's a mass transit policy that said that ethanol fuel would be subsidized for the next 12 months, to help out local producers. Then after the 12 months the government just simply continues to provide those subsidies. Surely someone has standing to sue here, right? Why not oil companies? etc. If that's more of an "energy policy" and less of a "mass transit" policy, then fine you can replace ethanol subsidies with high speed rail subsidies or something, though I think that gives you a less-tight analogy with the student loan subsidization scenario where you're illegally subsidizing a direct substitute for a company's product. The implicit logic that I've seen every now and then is "if the government is doing something nice for someone, then no one has standing to sue to stop it." To me that's the more obviously absurd position. If the government illegally subsidizes student loans, who has standing if not the companies that are trying to provide competing student loans? If the government illegally subsidizes ethanol, who has standing if not oil companies?
      - gaganyaan 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago

So I can't just think these things myself and have a valid opinion, you must dismiss my views as invalid and having been manipulated by the article. An ironic claim about bias. Also, do you have evidence of the bias you claim, or are you just biased?

gaganyaan 3y ago

Reading this thread is bizarre. You're straight-facedly arguing for an absurd position, people point out how absurd it is, and then you double down and defend the absurdity.

yanderekko 3y ago
Alternatively, I'm right and many others are wrong, largely because they're systematically biased based on loosely-applied tribal sentiments about federal government good, private loans bad, and all specific arguments are ad hoc and downstream from this. If you feel like contributing, please bring some arguments to the table. Do you think that SoFi is grounding its legal arguments in a "right to profit"? Do you think a broadly agreed-upon "right to profit" is necessary to generate legal standing in this case? Why?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > systematically biased based on loosely-applied tribal sentiments about federal government good, private loans bad, and all specific arguments are ad hoc and downstream from this. I think that claim is your bias or just misinformation talking. One reason is that it's a common bias of the right - they say liberals think this way, but I never hear actual liberals saying that. Do you have evidence of it?
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  You're arguing that oil & gas companies should have standing to sue over a specific mass transit policy: > I mean, maybe not "mass transit" in the abstract but a lot of specific mass transit policies that directly impact their business? Absolutely. That's absurd on the face of it, and people are trying to gently point that out to you. Consider that sometimes, when "everyone else is wrong and you're right", it's because you're actually driving down the wrong side of the freeway. Shouting "You're just driving on the wrong side of the freeway because of tribal sentiments!!" isn't a magic phrase that will prevent you from hitting another car. EDIT: I think you think this situation is akin to "well even bad people should get lawyers so that we know the rule of law is upheld". It's not. You're arguing for something closer to "well the murderer should've just murdered the witness that's testifying, and then the case would be dropped". In other words, you're arguing for something obviously unethical. Even if you believe you technically have a point, it's not a point that you should be telling other people that you want to have respect for you.
  - yanderekko 3y ago
    >You're arguing that oil & gas companies should have standing to sue over a specific mass transit policy Yes, this is trivially true. Let's say there's a mass transit policy that said that ethanol fuel would be subsidized for the next 12 months, to help out local producers. Then after the 12 months the government just simply continues to provide those subsidies. Surely someone has standing to sue here, right? Why not oil companies? etc. If that's more of an "energy policy" and less of a "mass transit" policy, then fine you can replace ethanol subsidies with high speed rail subsidies or something, though I think that gives you a less-tight analogy with the student loan subsidization scenario where you're illegally subsidizing a direct substitute for a company's product. The implicit logic that I've seen every now and then is "if the government is doing something nice for someone, then no one has standing to sue to stop it." To me that's the more obviously absurd position. If the government illegally subsidizes student loans, who has standing if not the companies that are trying to provide competing student loans? If the government illegally subsidizes ethanol, who has standing if not oil companies?
    - gaganyaan 3y ago