4 ms·
> It's not legal I said de facto legal. Emphasis on the de facto. It differs in EU countries though, and I recall reading at least some explicitly won't take
by PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> It's not legal
I said de facto legal. Emphasis on the de facto.
It differs in EU countries though, and I recall reading at least some explicitly won't take action against consumers downloading on a home internet connection.
- eviks 3y agoDe jure is opposed to de facto, so saying de facto de jure doesn't make sense regardless of emphasis, hence the confusion
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoI never said de jure. What a weird comment to make.
- eviks 3y agoOf course you did, that's what "legal" means
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoWow. No. You clearly misunderstand 'de facto' and 'de jure'. That's fine, not going to argue the point with you. Take care.
- eviks 3y agoYeah, I'm not the confused party here "De facto, (Latin: "from the fact") a legal concept used to refer to what happens in reality or in practice, as opposed to de jure ("from the law"), which refers to what is actually notated in legal code. "
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoEh, I guess I will argue it a little further. You absolutely are the confused party. Perhaps English is not your first language? You've provided the definitions for de facto and de jure but they don't support your point, at all - you still show a fundamental misunderstanding. If something is de facto legal, it means it is practically legal. That's exactly how I used it. I didn't say de jure as to say something was de jure legal would be redundant, and simply saying the word legal does not mean I said, or even implied de jure, as you rather ridiculously asserted. You're entirely and completely wrong here, and seem to have no concept of how these terms are actually used in practice. But since you seem to be the type who likes to argue for the sake of it, have at it. I'm curious how long you'll keep this going to avoid admitting fault.