3 ms·
I didn't mean MY language. I meant "what laws are being interpreted wrongly"
by AlbertCory 3y ago
I didn't mean MY language. I meant "what laws are being interpreted wrongly"
- Dylan16807 3y agoI 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 agoI 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 agowe're done here.
- Dylan16807 3y agoIt 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 agoyou had the last word there. Happy now? Reply stupidly to this and you can have it again.