8 ms·

> Do you really disagree with that claim? why don't you say what language is being misinterpreted, and we'll go from there?

Dylan16807 3y ago
Okay, let's start with "the entire body of law". If even a small fraction of laws have multiple tenable interpretations then that comment is correct. If you don't think that's the case for some laws, then I'm shocked. And this is before introducing the concept of "legislative intent", this is just at the base level of looking at the text of laws.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  I didn't mean MY language. I meant "what laws are being interpreted wrongly"
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    I don't think anyone said that laws were being interpreted wrongly? The claim was that some laws have multiple tenable interpretations. So for those laws you can have multiple distinct options, none of which are wrong ways to read the text. The thing called "wrong" was the idea that laws never do this.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      I guess you think this is an important point. Judges exist to determine what is the correct way to read the law. They don't always get it right, but that doesn't mean anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. GP (or GGP, or GGGP) claimed that courts were owned by the capitalists and were interpreting laws in Big Tech's favor, contrary to the legislative intent (whatever that is). Obvious nonsense.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        > I guess you think this is an important point. I don't really want to get into the importance of it here. But I do think it's true, so I replied when you called that specific point wrong. > GP (or GGP, or GGGP) claimed that courts were owned by the capitalists and were interpreting laws in Big Tech's favor, contrary to the legislative intent (whatever that is). Obvious nonsense. Which comment? I don't see it.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        we're done here.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        It would only take seconds for you to link the comment if it actually existed. I accept your "done here" with performative lack of capitalization.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        you had the last word there. Happy now? Reply stupidly to this and you can have it again.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> why don’t you say what language is being misinterpreted Because that was the opposite of the claim made that you disagreed with? Unless, you mean, “what language in a post you responded to in this thread was being misinterpreted by you”…

Dylan16807 3y ago

Okay, let's start with "the entire body of law". If even a small fraction of laws have multiple tenable interpretations then that comment is correct. If you don't think that's the case for some laws, then I'm shocked. And this is before introducing the concept of "legislative intent", this is just at the base level of looking at the text of laws.

AlbertCory 3y ago
I didn't mean MY language. I meant "what laws are being interpreted wrongly"
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I don't think anyone said that laws were being interpreted wrongly? The claim was that some laws have multiple tenable interpretations. So for those laws you can have multiple distinct options, none of which are wrong ways to read the text. The thing called "wrong" was the idea that laws never do this.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    I guess you think this is an important point. Judges exist to determine what is the correct way to read the law. They don't always get it right, but that doesn't mean anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. GP (or GGP, or GGGP) claimed that courts were owned by the capitalists and were interpreting laws in Big Tech's favor, contrary to the legislative intent (whatever that is). Obvious nonsense.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      > I guess you think this is an important point. I don't really want to get into the importance of it here. But I do think it's true, so I replied when you called that specific point wrong. > GP (or GGP, or GGGP) claimed that courts were owned by the capitalists and were interpreting laws in Big Tech's favor, contrary to the legislative intent (whatever that is). Obvious nonsense. Which comment? I don't see it.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        we're done here.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        It would only take seconds for you to link the comment if it actually existed. I accept your "done here" with performative lack of capitalization.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        you had the last word there. Happy now? Reply stupidly to this and you can have it again.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> why don’t you say what language is being misinterpreted Because that was the opposite of the claim made that you disagreed with? Unless, you mean, “what language in a post you responded to in this thread was being misinterpreted by you”…